England - Breaking new ground? or confined to History?

[Lardinho]

So for the past 4 years England have, quite rightly, been named the team that has made the worst defence of the Rugby World Cup in its shortlived history, but looking forward to Saturday, history begs to differ on this, but also shows that England may not be making the final by any means.

Only 1 nation, defending the RWC crown, has ever made it to the next RWK final. The 1987 winners, NZ went out in the 1991 SF. The 1991 winners, Australia, went out in the 1995 QF. The 1995 winners, RSA, went out in the semis in 1999. The 1999 winners, Australia, did indeed make it to the finals of their own world cup, although were pipped at the post.

Also apart from only 1 nation (Wales), all the RWK hosts have made it to their own final (at least).

If this world cup was in England, I would be confident that England would reach the finals, probably to be beaten by SA. Its quite rightly not in England though... and even if England play out of their skins, like they did in the 2003 world cup final, in which they totally dominated the game but due to the ref. it remained close... is it even possible for England to beat France in their own backyard in a world cup semi.

The refereeing was fairly one sided in the 2003 world cup final, despite England's dominance, yet it was nothing compared with NZ's dominance over the French in the semi and the French still won. With history against them, do England have any chance at all?

Also, the Aussies, the only team to defend and get to the final of the following world cup, if England make it to the final, do they then become the greatest ever defenders of the RWK crown, seeing as that both the RWC finals concerning England's defence were outside England?

 

[Triniquint]

So for the past 4 years England have, quite rightly, been named the team that has made the worst defence of the Rugby World Cup in its shortlived history, but looking forward to Saturday, history begs to differ on this, but also shows that England may not be making the final by any means.

Only 1 nation, defending the RWC crown, has ever made it to the next RWK final. The 1987 winners, NZ went out in the 1991 SF. The 1991 winners, Australia, went out in the 1995 QF. The 1995 winners, RSA, went out in the semis in 1999. The 1999 winners, Australia, did indeed make it to the finals of their own world cup, although were pipped at the post.

Also apart from only 1 nation (Wales), all the RWK hosts have made it to their own final (at least).

If this world cup was in England, I would be confident that England would reach the finals, probably to be beaten by SA. Its quite rightly not in England though... and even if England play out of their skins, like they did in the 2003 world cup final, in which they totally dominated the game but due to the ref. it remained close... is it even possible for England to beat France in their own backyard in a world cup semi.

The refereeing was fairly one sided in the 2003 world cup final, despite England's dominance, yet it was nothing compared with NZ's dominance over the French in the semi and the French still won. With history against them, do England have any chance at all?

Also, the Aussies, the only team to defend and get to the final of the following world cup, if England make it to the final, do they then become the greatest ever defenders of the RWK crown, seeing as that both the RWC finals concerning England's defence were outside England? [/b]

England haven't been 'defending' the world cup for the past 4 years, they began their defence of it on Sept 8th with their first game against the USA, in this 2007 tournament which they started off badly, but are now not doing so badly and, by extention, defending it not badly so far. Of course England may not make the final, but I haven't seen anything from France to suggest they are automatically going to stroll into the final - nor SAfrica for that matter.



if England go out against France, I think they'll have done a reasonable job defending the cup. Given SAfrica's performances, and two games against PI teams which they only won by luck and the skin of their teeth, they're not a foregone conclusion to win it either. Personally, if England don't win again, I'd like to see Argentina win it.

 

[melon]

They may not have been defending Webby for the past 4 years, however they have been justifying their worthiness of possessing it which they stuffed up magnificently up until their defence started on the 8th of September 2007.

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

Why do England need to justify being in possession of the World Cup? We won it in 2003 because we were the best team. How much more justification do you need?

Our crap performances have resulted in a relatively poor world ranking - nothing to do with the RWC.

 

[Triniquint]

They may not have been defending Webby for the past 4 years, however they have been justifying their worthiness of possessing it which they stuffed up magnificently up until their defence started on the 8th of September 2007. [/b]

Yes, no arguments there. They won it 4 years ago, and have since played very poor rugby. Perhaps they have suddenly realised the enormity of it all, and knuckled down to it at last. Exciting tournament, whichever way you look at it. I'd certainly be very surprised, pleasantly so - in fact, deliriously so - if they managed to successfully defend it, and keep it for another 4 years. What a turn up for the books that'd be!



I think I'd do nothing but laugh for the next 4 years............

 

[Lardinho]

I too would love to see the Argies win it if England don't. The only 2 teams I didn't want to win it went home on Saturday and its not personal either; Had Australia won this RWC, that would have been 3 wins in total and they would have been allowed to keep that trophy for ever and a new one would have to be made, just like Brazil keeping the Jules Rimet trophy, leading to the newer design of today. Aussies being the only team to have won it twice, but I didn't want the Kiwis to win either, as I was/am pretty sure they are going to win their own world cup in 2011, so this one would have made 2 and 2011 made 3, meaning they keep it forever.

Well SA won't host the WC until 2015 at least and until they have 2 RWC wins, I don't begrudge them winning it, so wanted them to win it if it was a SANZAR team.

France and the Argies of course haven't won a single one, France having been to the finals twice though and consistantl near the top of the tree for 20 years, if its France vs. SA final I will be backing France. If its France vs. Argentina, I honestly wouldn't mind who won, it would be amazing either way to have yet another new winner of the trophy.

I hope none of that happens and England become the first team to win 2 in a row, but I find that very unlikely.

 

[Bullitt]

I'm not so sure that "3 wins and you keep it" rule counts in Rugby. I'm pretty sure it's only poofballers who believe that.

 

[Rusty]

I'm not so sure that "3 wins and you keep it" rule counts in Rugby. I'm pretty sure it's only poofballers who believe that.
[/b]

Your 100% correct. Bill will remain as Bill forever, and be passed on to each WC winner. It's only some drama club..sorry...football club competitions that have that rule.

 

[Lardinho]

that really the case? I know 4 years ago it was being discussed, not sure if it was being discussed with any merit higher up in the IRL echelons or just by bored pundits on ITV. But I did hear a rumour, ah well, I still don't want either side getting 3 wins, no one will ever catch you ^_^