12/26/24
October 06, 2007
New World Order?: Hot favourites the All Blacks as well as Australia out, France and England advance at the Rugby World Cup.
It would seem that all the Aussie press can say in the aftermath is "thank god we're not kiwis!"
posted by JJ at 07:13 AM on October 08, 2007
The New Zealand Herald, the monday after the tournament started : "'It has taken all of one weekend for the inevitable truth of the Rugby World Cup to emerge, that the hosts - in a wider European sense - face a crushing embarrassment in their backyard. " And The Australian, this saturday before the game : "'THE simple fact is the Wallabies are a better rugby team than England. The Wallabies would gladly take the Webb Ellis Cup off their hands. In truth, it belongs to them, but, good sports that they are, they've been willing to share it over the years'" Nice of them to share it a bit more.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 08:29 AM on October 08, 2007
"in a wider European sense" you could say that the Argies are essentially a European team too, given that most of their players play their club rugby in Europe. All of that aside, I still fancy the cup will be spending the next four years south of the border with Brian Habana and Co.
posted by JJ at 10:05 AM on October 08, 2007
Yes, I think the way has been left open for South Africa, but it will be a good final if they are up against France in Saint Denis in a fortnight. Some of the press have picked up a thought that occured to me after the first two QFs: One of the big problems the IRB faces is inconsistency in refereeing, and the influence a particular ref can have on the way a game is played. What would have been the results if the referees had been swapped? The ref in the Aust-Eng match let a lot of things go at the breakdown, which England exploited. The ref in the NZ-Fra refused to let McCaw and company get away with anything. England got a lot of turnovers which would have been penalties to Australia under the other ref. So, the team that adapts to the ref best will probably win (?).
posted by owlhouse at 03:22 PM on October 08, 2007
Here's a good take on what the RWC really means to the average Australian. It's written for a laugh, but pretty spot on. "An aspirational private schoolboy wankfest." Heh heh.
posted by owlhouse at 03:59 PM on October 08, 2007
Refereeing in rugby is a thorny issue. I liked the Argentinian attitude when they heard who would be doing their game with Ireland (I forget now who it was... Paul Honiss?). They'd had him before and knew that he didn't like certain aspects of their play, so they changed their game plan a little to avoid getting in trouble with him. Union is essentially a game of cheating - who can bend the rules the furthest without breaking them? - and playing the referee is part and parcel of that. As for the blog link - maybe written for a laugh, but the humour gets a little drowned out by the sourness of the grapes. "Yeah, we lost to England, but we'd rather have been playing Aussie Rules anyway, mate." Sure thing. If you don't care about Union, why did you just spend a couple of hours writing about it?
posted by JJ at 04:09 AM on October 09, 2007
Ha! Just like the Yankees in American baseball the All-Blacks go down in flames as well. All style no substance.
posted by Brahdakine at 11:55 AM on October 11, 2007
Dude, please make intelligent comments about the Yankees on Yankees threads. You are making yourself look like an idiot. Please read the guidelines.
posted by hawkguy at 12:40 PM on October 11, 2007
Just an FYI for the American SpoFites, Versus will be showing the France game (delayed, I'm sure) at 2 p.m. PST Sunday.
posted by billsaysthis at 12:57 PM on October 12, 2007
Hemisphere, Schmemisphere. As an Australian, the result in the France-New Zealand game made me feel a whole lot better after the debacle against England. I'm transitting through Auckland this afternoon, which will be a more depressing experience than normal, I presume.