Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2015
Draw for future tournaments will be held closer to event to avoid group of death
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TRF_stormer2010" data-source="post: 741275" data-attributes="member: 39190"><p>As opposed to NZ and France in the "thrill-a-minute" 2011 final?</p><p></p><p>Lets be honest here all RWC finals are interesting for the occasion rather than the rugby on offer. And then almost only so for the fans of the teams involved rather than the neutral. Its just set up to be like that. Also rugby was different in 2007 and you can't blame the teams that played to the situation the best (SA, England and Argentina) for the context in which the tournament took place. </p><p></p><p>And lets not discount Argentina in 2007. They came in with a golden generation of players and at the end were 3rd overall of the RWC and rankings (not that I am willing to put too much emphasis on the rankings as its a mere snapshot and teams' approaches differ in the lead up) and SA thrashed them 37-13 in the SF. Argentina in turn annihilated France 34-10 for 3rd place, that same France that did for NZ in the QF. </p><p></p><p>So what am I getting at; its just too easy to take a string of one-off results and string them together in order to illustrate whatever you want. On the whole and all factors considered SA were good value for their ***le in 2007.</p><p></p><p>Edit:</p><p>Now if the RWC was awarded to the team that was the best across the 4 years leading up to the tournament then fine, give it to NZ. But its not. Its a tournament. And its played across less than 2 months. NZ just weren't their best right then and there. SA were.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TRF_stormer2010, post: 741275, member: 39190"] As opposed to NZ and France in the "thrill-a-minute" 2011 final? Lets be honest here all RWC finals are interesting for the occasion rather than the rugby on offer. And then almost only so for the fans of the teams involved rather than the neutral. Its just set up to be like that. Also rugby was different in 2007 and you can't blame the teams that played to the situation the best (SA, England and Argentina) for the context in which the tournament took place. And lets not discount Argentina in 2007. They came in with a golden generation of players and at the end were 3rd overall of the RWC and rankings (not that I am willing to put too much emphasis on the rankings as its a mere snapshot and teams' approaches differ in the lead up) and SA thrashed them 37-13 in the SF. Argentina in turn annihilated France 34-10 for 3rd place, that same France that did for NZ in the QF. So what am I getting at; its just too easy to take a string of one-off results and string them together in order to illustrate whatever you want. On the whole and all factors considered SA were good value for their ***le in 2007. Edit: Now if the RWC was awarded to the team that was the best across the 4 years leading up to the tournament then fine, give it to NZ. But its not. Its a tournament. And its played across less than 2 months. NZ just weren't their best right then and there. SA were. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Archived
Rugby World Cup 2015
Draw for future tournaments will be held closer to event to avoid group of death
Top