• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

2026 World Cup

The Rugby Forum - Global Rugby Union News, Six Nations & RWC Discussion

Help Support The Rugby Forum:

France's attack is individual brilliance, whereas Spain's is Tiki-Taka passing
 
General rule, the more a player is rolling around in "pain", the less pain they are in. I had an incident many years ago where I was in goal with some mini makeshift posts. I dived and caught the edge of my knee on the post. Didn't roll around, just curled up into a ball and stayed as still as possible.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
General rule, the more a player is rolling around in "pain", the less pain they are in. I had an incident many years ago where I was in goal with some mini makeshift posts. I dived and caught the edge of my knee on the post. Didn't roll around, just curled up into a ball and stayed as still as possible.
Click to expand...
Aren't you a big tough guy lmao.

Its true though, if your rolling around its either way way painfull, or your faking it
 
Fair play Spain. Absolutely deserved. Pretty much the entire world was not expecting you to win
 
Welsh Exile said:
Joking aside, whats the feeling in Argentina Cruz, and does it differ from yours?
Click to expand...
I dont really care that much, and I personally have zero animosity toward the english. In fact, they re one of the nationalities I generally get along with best.

The general sentiment here is that the islands are ours, that we will never give up the claim, and that the english only have them because they are militarily stronger. Not really a groundbreaking insight.
People are like that everywhere. Confirmation bias galore. They have an idea or feeling and they will only support the theories and evidence that backs up them.
Ive yet to meet a single argentine or english person who has sincerely taken the time to read and understand the other side s argument. Actually, that s not entirely true; I met one, but he was a diplomat, so he doesnt really count. it was his job to know. Regular people? None. Not a single one.
Self determination? Tell that to chagossians, or to cypriots ffs. Laughable stuff. The argument neither is nor was moral. It was about power. We understand that. But power tends to change and we have patience.

The difference I see in both approaches, and this is where Argentina has a soft but, in my opinion, significant edge, is that we care more about the issue and are playing the long game. We re naming schools, streets, parks, and all sorts of public places, even kids, after the islands, keeping the subject alive across generations. Every kid, every single kid learns the history (biased, but with a lot of focus), we sing songs at school about it, our band write songs about them, our producers make movies about the subject, books, the lot. We will not drop the issue.

If it were up to me to solve it (ha!), I d keep it very simple: one island for each side, shared underground resources on a 50–50 basis, and a return to normal commercial activities (flights, trade, etc.). I m not sure exactly how that would work in practice at the local level, but I think it’s an outcome both sides could not only live with, but also benefit from quite a lot.
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
I dont really care that much, and I personally have zero animosity toward the english. In fact, they re one of the nationalities I generally get along with best.

The general sentiment here is that the islands are ours, that we will never give up the claim, and that the english only have them because they are militarily stronger. Not really a groundbreaking insight.
People are like that everywhere. Confirmation bias galore. They have an idea or feeling and they will only support the theories and evidence that backs up them.
Ive yet to meet a single argentine or english person who has sincerely taken the time to read and understand the other side s argument. Actually, that s not entirely true; I met one, but he was a diplomat, so he doesnt really count. it was his job to know. Regular people? None. Not a single one.
Self determination? Tell that to chagossians, or to cypriots ffs. Laughable stuff. The argument neither is nor was moral. It was about power. We understand that. But power tends to change and we have patience.

The difference I see in both approaches, and this is where Argentina has a soft but, in my opinion, significant edge, is that we care more about the issue and are playing the long game. We re naming schools, streets, parks, and all sorts of public places, even kids, after the islands, keeping the subject alive across generations. Every kid, every single kid learns the history (biased, but with a lot of focus), we sing songs at school about it, our band write songs about them, our producers make movies about the subject, books, the lot. We will not drop the issue.

If it were up to me to solve it (ha!), I d keep it very simple: one island for each side, shared underground resources on a 50–50 basis, and a return to normal commercial activities (flights, trade, etc.). I m not sure exactly how that would work in practice at the local level, but I think it’s an outcome both sides could not only live with, but also benefit from quite a lot.
Click to expand...
The biggest thing I don't understand with those islands is why anyone would even want them. they hardly offer any benifits at all
 
Spain are France's cryptonite. The French forwards do what they do. So Spain used their possesion game to dominate the FRench midfield and they used their pressure game to make sure France could not get any platform for their dangerous midfield to supply the strikers (see what they did to Rabiot).
No other team has the game to do that to France. Spain have only lost once in play in 39 matches (away to Scotland).
They have Championship pedigree with a European Cup under their belt. Favourites for the title against all comers now.

They won't score as many against you as France, so maybe more beatable for England or Argentina than France.
 
Last edited:
Leonormous Boozer said:
30 min half time show confirmed for the final.

FIFA are the worst.
Click to expand...
If it didn’t involve us losing to Argentina I wouldn’t be that bothered about us missing out on this absolute crock of s***. Infannytino is the absolute worst. As for the game tomorrow, I’m looking forward to it. I’m not old enough to remember the legendary games between these two teams in previous years so this will be the first competitive game against Argentina that I’ll have a proper memory of.

There’s been some really shite, corporate atmospheres in this WC, even in the knockout games. Tomorrow won’t be anything like that, this will be an absolute cauldron of an atmosphere from both sets of fans. Everything about this game excites me, everything. @Cruz_del_Sur feeling confident about your lads’ chances?.
 
mackerzz said:
The biggest thing I don't understand with those islands is why anyone would even want them. they hardly offer any benifits at all
Click to expand...
That is one of the points i was trying to make erlier, albeit poorly. If someone takes something from me, my first reaction is not to explain to him why i need it. My first reaction is to try to get it back. If i cannot, i will try to create the conditions for my family to get it back in the future. Whether it is useful or not is not that important. That is, precisely, why we will not let it go. We will most likely turn it into a tier S uninhabitable shithole, but it will be OUR tier S uninhabitable shithole.
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
That is one of the points i was trying to make erlier, albeit poorly. If someone takes something from me, my first reaction is not to explain to him why i need it. My first reaction is to try to get it back. If i cannot, i will try to create the conditions for my family to get it back in the future. Whether it is useful or not is not that important. That is, precisely, why we will not let it go. We will most likely turn it into a tier S uninhabitable shithole, but it will be OUR tier S uninhabitable shithole.
Click to expand...
Oh absolutely. I do agree, it's just funny to me - from an outsider's perspective - how worked up people get over a useless rock in the middle of an ocean.

Although, to be fair, I would be exactly the same if someone tried to come and take over the Chatham Islands or something like that.

The biggest question is, though, do the people on the islands want to be Argentinian or British? Am I not right in saying they want to be British?
 
mackerzz said:
The biggest question is, though, do the people on the islands want to be Argentinian or British?
Click to expand...
Sorry, no. We do not accept that, for several reasons.
First, because it is a stance that historically the british have never respected, hence my comments about Chagos and Cyprus.
Second, following that logic, if i and 100 friends invaded an uninhabited island of your country, would you be ok if the government asked us if we wanted to be Argentinean and granted sovereignty of the island based on our answer?
I wouldnt (if i were in your shoes). It's like asking a squatter if he wants to be the owner of the property he took.
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
Sorry, no. We do not accept that, for several reasons.
First, because it is a stance that historically the british have never respected, hence my comments about Chagos and Cyprus.
Second, following that logic, if i and 100 friends invaded an uninhabited island of your country, would you be ok if the government asked us if we wanted to be Argentinean and granted sovereignty of the island based on our answer?
I wouldnt (if i were in your shoes). It's like asking a squatter if he wants to be the owner of the property he took.
Click to expand...
Except the people asked aren't the original inhabitants, they are many generations descended from them.

The people asked have been living there longer than the entire time Argentina had some control over them.

To put it in context, when Argentina asserted control over the islands, it had existed as a country for less time than the islanders had been there when Argentina invaded.

Using the squatter analogy, it would be more like you get a summer home but you don't go there for a while. When you do decide to go there, you find some squatters have taken residence. You get them evicted and for the next 200 years their descendents claim the house was actually theirs. They then break into the house and try to kick you out. You get them removed again but they continue to claim it's theirs.
 
Last edited:
Ragey Erasmus said:
Except the people asked aren't the original inhabitants, they are many generations descended from them.

The people asked have been living there longer than the entire time Argentina had some control over them.

To put it in context, when Argentina asserted control over the islands, it had existed as a country for less time than the islanders had been there when Argentina invaded.

Using the squatter analogy, it would be more like you get a summer home but you don't go there for a while. When you do decide to go there, you find some squatters have taken residence. You get them evicted and for the next 200 years their descendents claim the house was actually theirs. They then break into the house and try to kick you out. You get them removed again but they continue to claim it's theirs.
Click to expand...
The establishment of colonizing loyalist populations to establish control and subsequent claims over land has been in operation for many centuries.
This does not mean that people who might be descended from colonists have any less rights than anyone else. IMO The fact that these were not natural migrations of people, rather colonial manipulations. Ofcourse they would say they want the status quo. They should be protected in any settlement but the "self determination" angle from the Brits is extremely cynical given their brutal imperial history which was the antithesis of "self determination".
 
Demfad said:
The establishment of colonizing loyalist populations to establish control and subsequent claims over land has been in operation for many centuries.
This does not mean that people who might be descended from colonists have any less rights than anyone else. IMO The fact that these were not natural migrations of people, rather colonial manipulations. Ofcourse they would say they want the status quo. They should be protected in any settlement but the "self determination" angle from the Brits is extremely cynical given their brutal imperial history which was the antithesis of "self determination".
Click to expand...
By that argument Argentina has no right to self determination as it is the product of Spanish imperialism.

You have to draw the line somewhere and the current inhabitants have the strongest claim if any group in the world of being the natives of the islands.

Britain displays massive hypocrisy all over the place regarding our imperial past, the Falklands are one of the few places where we aren't.
 

Similar threads

J
XV Manager - Home made management rugby game
Replies
12
Views
465
PAC
P
wombles
6 Nations 2026 Review
Replies
7
Views
618
Deleted member 91904
D
B
Rugby Chamions (steam game)
Replies
1
Views
2K
oliver87
O
dullonien
Welsh squad under Gatland
9 10 11
Replies
311
Views
26K
BPM
BPM
jim546
Using Blender to add custom player faces to Rugby 08
2
Replies
56
Views
20K
GForce
GForce

Latest posts

Back
Top