Rugby World Cup 18 Sep - 31 Oct 2015

Yeah Owens has some rep for favouring the ABs. Not sure how you can quantify this as the ABs have clearly been a vastly superior team around the world for years. Also Oz were so crap because they were so ill disciplined.

On the game and the use of the rolling maul by Oz. All I can say is I grew up with Rugby purists whose idea of glorious match strategy was receiving the ball at the start, going into an immediate rolling maul and keep it going forward at just the necessary rate to effect a pushover try 39 minutes later. Repeat.

Oz by a converted try and penalty.

I agree with Bradman. Owens has a history of overpenalising the Aust scrum. I expect McCaw to spend more time on our side of the scrum than his own...and be allowed to get away with it. The AB's have too much depth which will be the difference. I tip the Blacks by 10.

My word - you're getting your retaliations on Owens in first!

Congrats NZ. I remember some on here were predicting a choke, at the time I thought that NZ had already got rid of their chokers tag after 2011 but felt confident they would silence the few remaining doubters and they have done so in emphatic style.

Unlucky Aussies, definitely the second best team in the tournament.

PeterCS wrote:My word - you're getting your retaliations on Owens in first!

He actually had a pretty good game. Missed a forward pass & a couple of knock ons in NZ's favour but it did'nt have much bearing on the result. Australia did'nt get their game together until the second half but by then it was too late & a try against the run of the game sealed it for the Kiwi's. As i said, NZ had too much depth & deserved the win.

No surprises, then.

Good final, with some really thrilling passages, esp in the second half.

The first 15 minutes or so looked set fair for the sort of attritional, slow stalemate thump-off I'd feared (see above). But then the blue touch paper was lit. It didn't help the Green&Gold that their line-out started to fall apart from about that point, under the sustained pressure. But the black began to groove more generally.

Oz had a 10-minute spell (+/- 50>60 minutes) where they ruled the game, and NZ were run ragged. That corresponded exactly with the sinbinning of the foundation of the NZ backs, the genius Ben Smith. There was no way he was going to escape the yellow card - the "both hands up" gesture of protested innocence is almost always an involuntary acknowledgement there's at least a binning here - even though I think there was no malice in the tackle, and certainly no deliberate dropping of the man he upended. Just last-tackle determination, in the heat of the moment (the All Blacks proved themselves also the most ferocious defensive squad in the tournament, even better than Australia in the last analysis), plus an inability fully to support the attacker as he came down.

Apart from giving the Aussies the extra fillip they needed, that ten minutes of dominance also showed how key "Smith, B" has been to the NZ success in the tournament. Sometimes you lose a man for 10 minutes and - with a special concerted team effort - there's little damage, in morale, momentum, points conceded. But Oz were all over the scrambling men in black for that period. And 14 points unanswered.

Apart from that, the Blacks made virtually all the running. I can't remember very much Aussie pressure on their opponents' line until 50 minutes in - or all that much once the #15 was restored - whereas the reigning and repeat champions seemed far too often in the Aussie half, and charging at them.

The smashing style of the Australian play - tackling, attempting to break tackles, "foraging", hunting - would have cracked most teams, possibly any other team in the tournament. But they met their match in that regard too.

Nonu came into his own, once he got some space to run in. And what a brilliant mazy, top-speed run to plunge over. McCaw had the game of a lifetime, instrumental in breaking the opposition's progress and setting up his own team, with huge speed resolution and skill. Retallick was an unshakeable thunderous man mountain. Carter, though more frail in loose play than he used to be (mind you, he cam in for a bit of skullduggery and survived it!), made some massive decisions, and his drop was a thing of beauty.

And what a bench the All Blacks have had .... wow. As if their starting XV did not have stars in almost every position.

The last bow of a great squad. Bloody memorable.


England had one thing to be proud of in these finals, I think (despite admission prices!). Well managed tournament, well treated teams, excellent grounds and pitch quality in almost every case that I saw.

And a shoutout for Owens. Again.

lardbucket wrote:No surprises, then.

I wouldn't say that. A lot of edge-of-the-seat stuff.

But more rugby delights than result surprises, maybe!

Well it's official - the Rugby World Cup has outlived it's usefulness.

It's reason for being was so we could laugh at NZ Rugby at least once every 4 years, in between utter AB domination.   With the ABs now winning a WC outside of NZ, even that small pleasure has been taken away. 

Farewell William Webb Ellis Trophy - it was fun while it lasted.

Congrets to the Blecks on a very predictable Final victory.

Valiant effort by Aus - I suspect your tougher route to the final just began to tell on your bodies as the physical assault early on from NZ was mightily impressive (the opening hit once again by Kaino on the kick off set the tone for NZ's physicality).

They softened you up like a good boxer and then went in for the kill from around the 30th minute or so.

Outside of the sin bin period they outscored you 34 to 3 - and without that sin bin I think they'd have been looking to put 50 on you, which would've been horrible and undeserved.

A measure of NZ's confidence was that, up 17-3 at the half they replaced the redoubtable Conrad Smith with Sonny Bill - basically saying we think we have you beaten and we have a way of destroying you and we're going to go for it. I cannot think of any other rugby side that would have the mindset to even consider such a move - that's how far ahead the ABs are when compared to everyone else.

Kurtley Beale was impressive - if Cheika can keep him focussed and fit then he is one of your key weapons in the backline. He got you back in the game and for a tiny moment it looked like you might take them - but NZ rediscovered their composure, applied the pressure and then Carter kicked a sweet drop goal just to make the point clear.

Owens did well overall - Wayne Barnes was iffy. How he did not call that forward pass by NZ was amazing. It was at least 2 yards forward.

I suspect most Australians, if they have any interest in rugby union at all beyond being happy that their team did better than England's did on this occasion, will still be more bemused by their team's unexpected progress to the final than disappointed by the result.

overall RUGBY PARTICIPATION is not in the top 20 sports, rating lower than field hockey, rugby league, soccer. It rarely rates a mention outside QLD and NSW; if reported at all in our TV Sports bulletins it's reported only briefly after extensive coverage of the AFL and League matches. To have won the tournament would have been akin to Ireland winning the Cricket World Cup.

lardbucket wrote:I suspect most Australians, if they have any interest in rugby union at all beyond being happy that their team did better than England's did on this occasion,  will still be more bemused by their team's unexpected progress to the final than disappointed by the result.

overall RUGBY PARTICIPATION is not in the top 20 sports, rating lower than field hockey, rugby league, soccer. It rarely rates a mention outside QLD and NSW; if reported at all in our TV Sports bulletins it's reported only briefly after extensive coverage of the AFL and League matches. To have won the tournament would have been akin to Ireland winning the Cricket World Cup.

Hardly.

Despite the relative lack or participation compared to AFL and League, rugby in Australia has very firm roots that go back hundreds of years, and a well-established and sound domestic structure at both club and Super 15 level.

Importing half of your talent from the Pacific Islands has helped, as well. Along with the odd grab of a big name from League.

lowlight of the Final was the photo of Rupert Murdoch smooching Jerry Hall..

Otherwise congrats to the vastly superior ABs

Henry wrote:

lardbucket wrote:I suspect most Australians, if they have any interest in rugby union at all beyond being happy that their team did better than England's did on this occasion,  will still be more bemused by their team's unexpected progress to the final than disappointed by the result.

overall RUGBY PARTICIPATION is not in the top 20 sports, rating lower than field hockey, rugby league, soccer. It rarely rates a mention outside QLD and NSW; if reported at all in our TV Sports bulletins it's reported only briefly after extensive coverage of the AFL and League matches. To have won the tournament would have been akin to Ireland winning the Cricket World Cup.

Hardly.

Despite the relative lack or participation compared to AFL and League, rugby in Australia has very firm roots that go back hundreds of years, and a well-established and sound domestic structure at both club and Super 15 level.

Importing half of your talent from the Pacific Islands has helped, as well. Along with the odd grab of a big name from League.

It's now a niche sport, like cricket in Ireland, whatever popularity it might once have enjoyed in NSW. It is propped up by Samoans, Tongans, and Fijians, without whom we would do even worse. That we compete at all on the world stage is a miracle.

Jeez Lardy, you really hate rugby don't you.

there is a lot of money thrown at union in Oz ...probably not as much as thrown at afl , cricket and league

its growing in wa

Super Rugby helps us stay competitive as we know what level we need to be at for the ABs and the Boks




soccer is also growing and you could argue it is propped up by poms and itches ...but it is till growing


Well done to the ABs on not choking

horace wrote:lowlight of the Final was the photo of Rupert Murdoch smooching Jerry Hall.

Have to agree this creeped me out a little. But good luck to the old qunt. And Rupert as well.

taipan wrote:Jeez Lardy, you really hate rugby don't you.

Not at all. It's a minor sport and probably as loved by its aficionados as I love field hockey. About the same participation and profile.

lardbucket wrote:

taipan wrote:Jeez Lardy, you really hate rugby don't you.

Not at all. It's a minor sport and probably as loved by its aficionados as I love field hockey. About the same participation and profile.

Bigger than cricket I would say in terms of countries playing.

skully wrote:

horace wrote:lowlight of the Final was the photo of Rupert Murdoch smooching Jerry Hall.

Have to agree this creeped me out a little. But good luck to the old qunt. And Rupert as well.

Loving your work, skulls   .

lardbucket wrote:

Henry wrote:

lardbucket wrote:I suspect most Australians, if they have any interest in rugby union at all beyond being happy that their team did better than England's did on this occasion,  will still be more bemused by their team's unexpected progress to the final than disappointed by the result.

overall RUGBY PARTICIPATION is not in the top 20 sports, rating lower than field hockey, rugby league, soccer. It rarely rates a mention outside QLD and NSW; if reported at all in our TV Sports bulletins it's reported only briefly after extensive coverage of the AFL and League matches. To have won the tournament would have been akin to Ireland winning the Cricket World Cup.

Hardly.

Despite the relative lack or participation compared to AFL and League, rugby in Australia has very firm roots that go back hundreds of years, and a well-established and sound domestic structure at both club and Super 15 level.

Importing half of your talent from the Pacific Islands has helped, as well. Along with the odd grab of a big name from League.

It's now a niche sport, like cricket in Ireland, whatever popularity it might once have enjoyed in NSW. It is propped up by Samoans, Tongans, and Fijians, without whom we would do even worse. That we compete at all on the world stage is a miracle.  

Spoken like a true AFL fan. I question your perceived participation levels, particularly compared to league. Rugby has strong competitions in all states whereas League is pretty well only played in NSW & Qld. The fact that the majority of Rugby in Aust is still played at the amateur level may give a somewhat distorted picture.

The participation levels come from an independent source - Morgan. See link above.

Well – the “limited geographical distribution/participation/interest” argument.

I suppose RU is way down the list in Oz because – in a sport-obsessed, outdoor-climate nation as it is (which drives numbers up for other sports) – it is (still) played in restricted geographical zones.

However, the same is true in France – basically the SW corner and the capital – and not that dissimilar in England (! – mainly the SW corner & capital, though also a few enclaves (notably Leicester, Northampton) in the Midlands and the odd pocket in the North). Wales, Ireland, Scotland all have considerably smaller populations than Oz (3-5mill vs 23/24mill). And while it’s National Sport #1 in NZ, that country is also 5-6 times smaller in population than Australia.

And then, in England, Ireland, Scotland, despite professionalisation in the last few years, RU is still mainly a "middle-class sport", reducing its participation and following further in those countries.

So “limited distribution and participation” in Australia, hence way down the list? - Yes, but ...

And then, Australia has won this cup twice (as often as any other country till now), and stood at #2 in world rankings – much closer to NZ than SAfrica at #3 or anyone else was to it – before the RWC finals.

So to claim it had the world status of Ireland in cricket is a wee bit far-fetched.

Plus, just about ANY competitive sport played in & for sport-mad Oz is generally played to win, with ultra-competitive super-commitment – or grim determination, if you prefer. If there’s a tiddlywinks team in green&gold, you can be confident it pulls out all the stops, sponsorships/endorsements and mental resources to come out on top, and avoid the national ignominy (and legendary shunning by many Aussie fans fans) of losing – sometimes it appears almost whatever it costs in terms of proportion and general sanity. (As we know, England have too often tended to the opposite extreme.)

Oz may “punch above its weight”, population-wise, in all sorts of sports. But to paint it as a dwarf in world RU is a bit implausible.

Australia, relatively briefly in the doldrums some 12 months ago, performed mightily, with an absolutely dedicated, motivated, drilled and cohesive squad in this RWC.

So, to imply “Meh! Nobody cares - and they never had a cat in hell’s chance in the first place” seems not only a bit "stretching it", but ungracious to the talents, efforts and achievement of your national team. Of course you don’t have to be remotely interested (unless, ahem, Oz wins). but coming across as humourlessly curmudgeonly, even a bit sour, seems churlish & unfair to your guys - apart from anything else.

Which is why I’ve risked a Karti here. I feel good grace matters, whenever possible.

The fact remains that the sport is no more popular than hockey. Why we do reasonably well in it - or hockey - remains a mystery I was leaving others to explain. Since it's been totally misinterpreted, I'll explain. Perhaps, just perhaps, it's because other countries, too (like England, France, Argentina, etc) do not see it as the all-consuming and all-important sport that it is in NZ and to a lesser extent in Saffieland. I really did not think that this needed explaining.

If every WC ever run had been won by NZ, it would have reflected the interest and participation in rugby in that country relative to the interest in it in the other countries that contest this sport.

I was neither playing down the efforts of those from my own country who play the sport (I don't know them well enough to do so even if I wanted to); nor was I attacking England, as you seem to think. I was simply saying that Australia had done rather better than expected in a sport which does not rank in our top 20 participation sports and one which clearly falls behind cricket, AFL, soccer, tennis, swimming, golf, motor sport, horse racing, and rugby league ... not to mention netball ... in the nation's viewing priorities. What surprises me most is the failure of the NZ side to rubber-stamp this tournament as their very own before now, given the national obsession with the game. To my eyes it is this failure that drew the comparison of a supreme cricket nation being toppled by Ireland in a WC final.

Why haven't NZ won them all?