Reply With QuoteWe weren’t playing? Not sure what your point is other than I’m Scottish?Originally Posted by hilly10
I’ve played and regularly watch. If you thought that was a good advert for the game tonight then with all due respect you are deluded. England did a lot well and got close but it was ugly with hardly a try opportunity for either team in 80 mins, countless handling errors, kicking was on the whole abysmal and don’t get me started on the ability to throw a ball into a line out. Maybe instead of saying why I’m wrong why don’t you flesh out the bones and explain why you are right and how it was a magnificent spectacle.
We weren’t playing? Not sure what your point is other than I’m Scottish?
IMHO it was a game reminiscent of the Rugby that I knew when I played back in the dark ages. Attritional, emphasis on possession rather than flow, forwards in a wrestling match, backs kicking for territory. It doesn't make for a great spectacle but personally I do like an 80-minute grind.
I can't say that the better team lost; I can say that a tournament in which England were less humiliated than I thought they would be is not a bad result given that we were never going to win the WET anyway.
I have enjoyed watching the tournament, and look forward to another couple of hard-fought contests yet to come.
I predict the third place playoff to be a repeat of tonight's game, but the final should be as good to watch as the best of the semis..
Fairly honest appraisal I’d say although the third place match will see more flair than tonight I think.
Why has this turned into a petty England Scotland thing from those based in England.
Is it only England based folk that are entitled to comments on England’s sporting failures of which there have been many bar 3 it appears?
Keeping this to the uk we can safely say, Wales, Scotland and (Northern) Ireland aren’t exactly feared in sporting circles - perhaps Ireland are/were in rugby. I’ve found that these nations peoples are happy to talk about their lack of success and share it evenly. But not England - that makes them the subject of much ridicule and friendly teasing. But then it crosses a line and it’s stirred into a country thing.
What a lot of bollocks. For the three MENS Tournaments englands sporting teams have won, they have failed in the rest just as the other three UK nations have.
So those who make sporting (dis)achievement a national thing, get over yourself. We are surely all entitled and encouraged to comment on success and failure in sport from wherever you reside, without the line degenerating. Sadly, that comes mainly from one place giving the others plenty scope for hearty laughter at their expense - time and again!
Jim
I’m sorry Scottish Chaps, did you want us to send you a postcard from the semi-finals, just to let you know what the view is like from there?
My personal opinion is that, being Scottish types, you exited early so you could get early flights home, you know, before the rush, when tickets were still a bit cheaper.
I do normally keep away from controversial posts, but as a chap who played rugby for my school, my college, a number of banks when I worked in the city and, until my knees decided that watching was a better occupation, various clubs, I think I do have a reasonable view of what makes a decent game.
This was one.
I said to Mrs. B that I was dreading the World Cup, that England wouldn’t do too well in the group stages. OK, they had an easy group, but they showed that they have it in them to play running rugger. I declared that they were unlikely to move past the quarter finals. I was wrong, and it was a close enough game to be enjoyable.
I firmly predicted that the semi final would be an embarrassment, and I was wrong. England played with heart, they played the game they had to play. I like a running game as much as the next man, but the way that England closed down the Bocks attack, time after time, was a delight to watch. 20 minutes in I said that, regardless of result, it was a good game.
England can beat the best in the world on their day, and it almost came together for them.
I’ve always said that the thing about rugby, where it differs from football, is that it’s not just about the result. It’s about the game. I’d rather lose well than win badly and England did that in this game. There was no shame in leaving the title race in the way they did, they fought to the end and they never lost heart.
No shame at all in the way they lost, unlike the mealy-mouthed Scottish comments in this thread. Vote independence, brothers, leave the union and then you’ll have no reflected glory to bask in when your insignificant sporting nation fails to make progress.
Toodles!
The one lesson I took from the game (such as it was) is that props first have to be props - a message that only SA and Joe Marler seem to have on board.
I don’t think I made a single disparaging comment about England - merely made observations on the game as a spectacle. If anything I had a go at the bokssaid the game was attritional and errors aplenty and England forwards were winning the game and boks kicking was club standard and that I expected England to go on and win it. Which bit was the offensive bit and I will redact it for you?
Edit I said Farrell was gobby and annoying and would be penalized for it. I can’t in all conscience take that back. Also said England choked at the end - maybe that’s a little harsh but that’s how it felt.
Last edited by RustyBin5; 22nd October 2023 at 09:33.
I don't watch most rugby on tv ,save for the bigger games. For those who thought it was such a terrible game, they could have used the remote and switched over to Strictly ...
I was hooked on the entire 90 minute.Gutting to lose it late on. Pollards boot is deadly, and don't know why he didn't start over Libbock.
Absolute credit to England for stifling the Boks, and so, so nearly turning them over.You come up with a plan to try and win with what you have, and snuffed them out much of the game forcing errors. Marler and Cole leaving the pitch caused the damage in the scrums...
Ill give it a football comparison and say anyone remember the Crazy gang......
90 minutes appears also to be a football comparisonas for changing channel - it was a semi final so you watch it. The narrative here is just that it was a poorer viewing spectacle than the quarter finals were. Maybe understandable given the size of the game the conditions and the opponents, but it is what it is. Apparently some people on here seem to think that making a comment that a game wasn’t exciting makes you a Sabre rattling nationalist crazy that must be taken down by slinging insults. Pathetic really. (Not aimed at you by the way).
Last edited by RustyBin5; 22nd October 2023 at 09:41.
lol90 minutes appears also to be a football comparison
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fair enough.I don’t think I made a single disparaging comment about England - merely made observations on the game as a spectacle. If anything I had a go at the boks
Edit I said Farrell was gobby and annoying and would be penalized for it. I can’t in all conscience take that back. Also said England choked at the end - maybe that’s a little harsh but that’s how it felt.
Indeed, you said SA were toothless and would lose, but then after they had won, said SA/NZ would be the better final!
And im not signed up for the anti Scottish nonsense.
It was a bit silly to say it was a horrible game, when to my eyes it was an amazing performance from England, something none of us saw coming, accurate, disciplined, together, brave, you name it.
Nche came on and goosed Sinckler sadly and we coughed up 5 penalties in the scrum, which cost us in the end.
Congrats to the Saffas.
Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk
My faux pas for using 90, instead of 80 minutes. Although the games more comparable to each other with Var and stoppages, and the video ref and clock stopping in rugby.90 minutes appears also to be a football comparison
More like you put up with it as it’s a semi.
Funny, as 4 years ago, England played much better rugby, nailing AB’s in the semi, and fancied to take home the trophy against the Boks in the final. Pollard kicked 22 points in that game which effectively won the match. That wouldn’t have been the way to play rugby, or make for an exciting 80 minutes, but as it was the final, stuck with it…
Maybe 4 years time down under, the other home nations can fare better.
I don’t know much about and am not that keen on Rugby Union, but do like watching competitive sport generally. An attractive spectacle or not, it looked like England, the clear underdogs, had a pretty good game plan to win and it nearly came off.
Like you, I thought the substitutions made a big difference. South Africa’s really had a positive effect whereas England’s seemed a big step back. Were they enforced through injury or chronic fatigue? Sinckler, isn’t he a bit of a liability?
Is forum favourite Owen Farrell going to take the wrap and forum’s wrath for this?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
At the end of the day, every spectator, or supporter has an opinion. I think people are probably more surprised at England getting so, so close to winning the match. Tactics. It may not be pretty, it may not be exciting, or visually stimulating, but you use what you’ve got against what opponent you’re facing. Most people probably would have thought a bartering was on the way, and if we had played the type of game France played against the Boks last week, it probably would have been.
For me, no. Nailed his penalties, and superb drop goal. Some may say his petulance cost us 3 points on the 10 metre penalty.
Subs prob through fatigue.
The important thing is England use this as a platform to build on for the future. We have quite a few young players in the squad, I'd imagine a fair few will now retire (Marler, Cole, George etc) so we have to rebuild a squad that can challenge for 6N around the likes of Steward, Martin and hope some good young players come through on the conveyor belt. At U20 level in Europe France are on a different level currently.
Englands tactics we’re spot on - almost. I think they could have spun it wide on at least a couple of occasions but chose not to. Plan almost worked.
4 yrs ago was very good. Thought England were excellent then. In 4 yrs time down under I think it will be very difficult but hope to be proved wrong.
I’d disagree with the quarters being a better viewing experience, if you mean the England quarter. Other quarter finals were better than the England one, that’s for definite.90 minutes appears also to be a football comparison
The whole point of England’s game plan in the semi’s was to win, and if anybody thinks that playing open and flowing rugby against SA is anything other than an invitation for them to gain turnover and run in try after try, you’re simply wrong. The England pack (at least before all the substitutions on both sides) were stronger, the kicking game really did work in the first half and for much of the second, the England forwards were stronger on the day and answered every SA question convincingly.
Once Faf de-Klerk came on, and the England front line was changed, the writing was on the wall and it was just a matter of time. For any England fan, the game was three minutes too long. SA wheeled the scrum for penalties and England had no viable response.
Anyway, for those who have asked if I would have similar conversations with Scottish people face to face, well, absolutely. My mum is Welsh and most of my cousins are, like me, rugby players. The banter flows and as the lone English voice, I’m usually shouted down, but it’s done in good spirits (including comments about independence although I think I normally refer to their country as “trivial” and point out that at least Scotland have their own parliament, whereas Wales are lead by an assembly, which is what we had at school). Nobody takes offence and even though it sometimes gets a bit savage, it’s never taken seriously.
So, if you took my baiting as an invitation for some nationalist banter, feel free. If you took offence, please don’t, it wasn’t meant to be serious.
For what it’s worth, I agree wholeheartedly with the comments about Farrell, his kicking (other than the drop goal) has been off-par for much of the tournament and he really needs to wind his neck in. As captain he should be defending his position and team, but he needs to know when he’s said enough. A lesson that, apparently, I could also learn ;)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There's been worse on here.
I remember some clown trying to establish that he was the TZ Rugby Union expert by claiming to have beaten the All Blacks when he played for the Saudi Arabian XI.
Guess hard to criticise too much due to the drop goal but I guess Wilko wouldn't of cost them 3 points gobbing off back in the day.
Also SA's gameplan does revolve to a large degree on their ability to bring on the 'bomb squad' from the bench at around 60 minutes. I know they brought them on earlier this time (and not at the same time) but you usually have to try and get a couple of scores up on the Boks before their beasts come on so I think there was always the likelihood that the Boks would finish strong.
No offence taken at all - just didn’t understand where the rhetoric was coming from when we weren’t even playing lol. Hilly appears rather bitter for sure
Rusty
A mealy mouthed self deprecating sweaty sock
I think it WAS an amazing performance by England. I also think it was a horrible error strewn game. Not mutually exclusive. For long time rugby fans there was elements to enjoy and indeed savour but for an army of occasional armchair fans who only drop in to watch the big games I’m sure they left frustrated by the kicking ping pong and up front arm wrestle. Maybe I should have worded it like that. Still think SA NZ would be a more entertaining match for many. Your comment re the subs are on the money.
Last edited by RustyBin5; 22nd October 2023 at 11:21.
First off - I'm Scottish & from bitter experience I know that it's the hope that kills you. England had a taste of that hope turning bitter last night.
Secondly - I'd question Borthwick's decision to start with Cole at TH. Cole's strength is his scrummaging, no doubt, but he does little else: doesn't carry much, doesn't ruck much, doesn't tackle much, doesn't lift in the lineout etc., etc.. In international rugby today there are fewer scrums in the early parts of games than a few years ago, so what was Cole there to do for the first 50 or 60 minutes? Borthwick must have known that SA would have the Ox in reserve to take on the tiring Cole or the less-effective Sinkler in the scrum.
Thirdly - did Marchant or Tuilagi even have a run with the ball last night?
Fourthly - at the death & in worse conditions, trailing by a point & having dropped a 50m goal earlier in the match, England chose to take the ball out wide left rather than keep punching up the middle & pressuring the SA defensive ruck & possibly positioning Ford/Farrell for a DG or a penalty in front of the posts. Why?
______
Jim.
I was expecting England to get hammered, but I doff my hat to the team for losing to the world Champs by a single point. Not withstanding that they still beat both Argentina and Fiji on their way to the semis.
However having watching the All Black demolish the Pumas, they should dispatch South Africa without to much trouble, but it will be brutal because that seems the only way SA know how to win. Wayne Barnes will have his work cut out, plus we will still have an Englishman in the final.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
The reality is that england got to the semi final due to a querk of a pool draw made 3 years ago that put Japan into pot 2 of draw,they then benefited from the fact that Australia were even more awful than england.
They went out the first time they faced a tier 1 team
England would not have got out of either of the pools of death.
England are a top rugby nation, or they should be, they have 10 times the players to pick from than the other home nations
England had an arm wrestle with SA, which they almost won. Losing well is Scotland and Ireland mantra but let's not lose sight that this is the worse england team in the last 20 years
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Andy the Boks trounced NZ just before the world cup.I was expecting England to get hammered, but I doff my hat to the team for losing to the world Champs by a single point. Not withstanding that they still beat both Argentina and Fiji on their way to the semis.
However having watching the All Black demolish the Pumas, they should dispatch South Africa without to much trouble, but it will be brutal because that seems the only way SA know how to win. Wayne Barnes will have his work cut out, plus we will still have an Englishman in the final.
No doubt NZ have got players back and improved big time but I'd still give the boks the edge next week.
Could easily go either way.
England used the only tactics that would give them a chance: grind it and slow down every SA ruck. It almost worked.
And that would have been a travesty.
On its own, I agree with unclealec that it was an interesting game il you like to watch the front 8 in action. I also think that O'Keefe's tolerance for hands on the ball in the ruck was laxist, if consistent. It shows that England did its homework preparing for the game, but it's a bit disappointing when every other game was quick because that was penalised.
I think Bill Beaumont's excuse for drawing the pools as early as World Rugby did is poor and doesn't hold when compared to what Football does. England did well out of it but we had the semifinals a round earlier. Not sure it would have made for a different final, though.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Don't forget that for almost all of the England SA match it was throwing it down. Both sides were bound to feel that testing the opposition under the high ball had a good chance of getting rewards.
How does everyone feel about third place matches in general. Pointless or worthwhile? If some players retiring then is there any point playing them or is it the first chance to blood youngsters?
It’s just a cash cow for the organisers, I can’t imagine either team want to play it.
Agreed, It means nothing and is just another game in a long season
Last edited by Sinnlover; 24th October 2023 at 08:34.
Indeed, at best a friendly for the supporters, at best.
For the players a game they never wanted to play with the added risk of a pointless injury.
Far better to do away with it and get the players home into the rest period before getting back to club rugby, are any of the bronze medal winners gonna crow about having one in 10 years time?
It’s a tournament, get over this 3 and 4 playoff game it’s part of there job to turn up. Bronze is better than sod all, it seems that if England aren’t in the final they take their bat and ball and walk home sulking.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
It’s not an England thing, no team wants to play in a 3rd 4th play off whether that be football, rugby or any other sport.
In Olympic boxing, both beaten semi finalists get a bronze medal.
As explained on this thread it’s not sulking, the 3rd place play off is one extra game in a long season, they run the risk of injury, and it benefits no one bar the organisers and their pockets.
Most players regardless of nationality would not want to play in it for the reason outlined.
It's a much more important game for ARG than it is for ENG.
If ARG win, they'll certainly be bragging about it in 10 years time.
In other news, the next RWC will be expanded to 24 teams. I'm already looking forward to more 70/80/90 point thrashings for lower-ranked nations in AUS in 2027.
______
Jim.
Maybe if the format involves preliminary groups for the lesser nations that could qualify into the final spaces in the main groups that would work. I certainly have no appetite for Andorra v the All Blacks.
Agreed. Wonder what the criteria would be to determine a “lesser nation.”
Based on the 6N of the last few years that would be fascinating. Bottom 3 are lesser nations?
Jim
Well currently there are qualifying groups to get to the World Cup and that seems to work ok. Basically I think the actual World Cup might have to have like an upper and lower bracket, that way the number of pointless games is reduced but the small teams still get a shot at the bigger teams in round two (the actual group stage) if they win lower bracket. I remember the Portugal v USA qualifier and it was a great contest. What criteria establishes who is a lesser team will be interesting- might be rankings based might be knockout qualifier based. Time will tell.
Edit - apparently the top tier nations are known. "The top tier will be the Six Nations (England, France, Ireland, Italy, Scotland, Wales), the four Rugby Championship teams (Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) and two additional teams, likely to be Japan and Fiji. The second tier will feature 12 further countries with promotion and relegation on the table from 2030, meaning 2032 is the earliest one of those teams could feature in the top tier." quoted from Alan Gilpin, CEO of World Rugby.
Last edited by RustyBin5; 24th October 2023 at 22:56.
I think there's some confusion over two different competitions here.
In 2026, there will be a new Nations' Championship, featuring two divisions of 12 teams. There will be promotion & relegation in that competition from 2030. That's entirely separate from the RWC expansion in 2027.
______
Jim.
My mistake - plot thickens. Ok so it’s to be 6 pool groups of 4 which I guess means seeds will be more separated and stop groups of death happening. Sounds like they are trying to ensure all the big teams get to knockout stages and dressing it up as opening it to more countries to participate. Prob both.
Last edited by RustyBin5; 25th October 2023 at 12:00.
A sidestep:I went from Paris Gare du Nord to the Netherlands on Monday with the Thalys now: Eurostar. In front of me: SA Springbok fans and NZ All Black fans all waiting for the Eurostar to Blighty, on the platform next to my train. All were about to visit family & spend the week in the UK - with the plan to return for the Final next weekend.
A NZ couple told me that they would stay in Europe the week after the final. "It's cheaper to stay in Europe for another week than to fly back asap after the final! Ticket prices for planes to Auckland are insane!"
Standard sadly. Flights from Scotland to Berlin doubled on price as soon as we qualified for the football euros
This 'nation championship' is dangerous, they are trying to get the magic of the 6 nation's, which is still be best rugby tournament. By adding teams you dilute the competition, adding all the tier 2 and tier 3 nations will turn people off, Italy have had 20 years to be competitive but still get the wooden spoon almost every year
It's just a way for world rugby to rinse fans
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Only if we fall for it, seems the SRU are trying to get rid of the normal season ticket fans and make room for the big paying special occasion visitors.
A few years ago the SRU played their hand and tried to stop the allocation to clubs so all tickets would be bought through them forgetting that the clubs make up the majority of voting rights, it got kicked into touch but they will continue to try and cut the clubs out, they want email addresses and data to sell on to third parties, they are all at it
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
As an Irishman who believe it or not was a neutral on the night, I thought the England / South Africa game was one of the most enjoyable of the world cup, despite the contradiction of me hating that kind of rugby.
On a neutrals book, and given the "momentum" England had coming into this World Cup, it was absolute no hopers against the all conquering Boks. No neutrals could realistically see a tactic, that could be implemented. England came with a plan to win/stay in the game and they implemented it brilliantly. The Boks were completely rattled and had no options open to them until Vunipola and Nche appeared on the field. Once the England scrum started reversing it was inevitable, but was still a fantastic performance by the majority of the England players and a genuine case of "so near".
Posting Permissions
