Saturday, October 11, 2003
Very cruel.
But looking for a rugby league stat, I tried to visit this site. Their message?
"International Rugby League is currently under a revamp and will be reopened within the next few days
Sorry for the inconvience"
"International Rugby League is currently under a revamp and will be reopened within the next few days
Sorry for the inconvience"
Comments, South Africa - Uruguay
1) Not as much fun as last time, when it took ages for SA to build up a lead. This time, they were 12-0 up in 6 minutes. But Uruguay have given them a great deal of trouble in the scrum, front of line-out, and the maul. The reason being, of course, that the Uruguan pack is incredlemente fuerte...
2) I like this summary - "They've scored a try, but I'm not sure what they've learnt by it. They've shown they can catch the ball in a line out, but they've not given their backs any practice. I'm not sure that's what I'd have done, and if I was the South African coach I wouldn't be happy". Or something like that, when SA scored a push-over try. Of course, England scored a push-over try in 1998 while thrashing Holland, but then we scored pretty much every type of try in that farce.
I think it's right that too much of SA's game has been in the forwards and around the back of their line-out (where height is a big plus for them). And if England need tries against Uruguay, I reckon that's what we'll be doing. But they've not tried to impose a structure on the game and play the kind of game they want to put up against England. Unless Strauli really has opted for "headless chicken" as a tactical approach.
Commentators saying, in merged quotes - only one of the 11 tries has gone down the line and really been created, the rest through superior physique and fitness. I suppose the big plus has been that they've had a bit of pressure up front, and they've not given anything away to England. And they've just been given another try from a chip through.
But I'd hope England try to play roughly to our game plan against Georgia, but without any special moves. Standard back-row pick-up, a couple of miss moves, maybe, but nothing too special. But trying to drive on with the forwards, then send the ball down the line to send round the wing, or to play a break in a "serious" style.
Worse yet, South Africa didn't use too many of my fantasy rugby side to score points, so I'm going to be embarassed in the first round....
3) Final score, 72-6. Bad, but not totally humiliating for Uruguay. Certainly, nowhere near the Japan 1995 score (145-17 by NZ), or Romania in a friendly vs England. Given the number of 50 - not much hidings we've seen in the last couple of years among strong sides, I think Uruguay should be moderately satisfied. After we see Georgia, I'll predict the group.
2) I like this summary - "They've scored a try, but I'm not sure what they've learnt by it. They've shown they can catch the ball in a line out, but they've not given their backs any practice. I'm not sure that's what I'd have done, and if I was the South African coach I wouldn't be happy". Or something like that, when SA scored a push-over try. Of course, England scored a push-over try in 1998 while thrashing Holland, but then we scored pretty much every type of try in that farce.
I think it's right that too much of SA's game has been in the forwards and around the back of their line-out (where height is a big plus for them). And if England need tries against Uruguay, I reckon that's what we'll be doing. But they've not tried to impose a structure on the game and play the kind of game they want to put up against England. Unless Strauli really has opted for "headless chicken" as a tactical approach.
Commentators saying, in merged quotes - only one of the 11 tries has gone down the line and really been created, the rest through superior physique and fitness. I suppose the big plus has been that they've had a bit of pressure up front, and they've not given anything away to England. And they've just been given another try from a chip through.
But I'd hope England try to play roughly to our game plan against Georgia, but without any special moves. Standard back-row pick-up, a couple of miss moves, maybe, but nothing too special. But trying to drive on with the forwards, then send the ball down the line to send round the wing, or to play a break in a "serious" style.
Worse yet, South Africa didn't use too many of my fantasy rugby side to score points, so I'm going to be embarassed in the first round....
3) Final score, 72-6. Bad, but not totally humiliating for Uruguay. Certainly, nowhere near the Japan 1995 score (145-17 by NZ), or Romania in a friendly vs England. Given the number of 50 - not much hidings we've seen in the last couple of years among strong sides, I think Uruguay should be moderately satisfied. After we see Georgia, I'll predict the group.
Bring me Ned Ludd
The Times seems to have the scoop on what's going wrong for Argentina, and could for other teams in the tournament with clear patterns in what they do:
"In a way, however, they were beaten before they started, not so much by Australia, but by technology. For this World Cup a new software package has been developed that has provided the International Rugby Board and its referees with the means of analysing where and why individual countries tend to concede penalties.
Details of the past 50 awarded against every team have been fed into a computer. The results give an instant breakdown to which referees can refer in the build-up to a match. In short, they are better prepared and know what to look for. The danger is that it may lead to referees officiating according to their perceptions rather than what they see with the naked eye.
In Argentina’s case, their tricks of the trade in the scrum would appear to have been exposed. At four of the first nine scrums Paul Honiss, the New Zealand referee, awarded free kicks against them, primarily for failing to engage straight. They became increasingly frustrated and wary of further infringement. With their forwards emasculated, Argentina had nowhere to turn."
In a way, this is just an extension of ref's impressions of the key areas to watch before a game. However, there's a real risk here.
Teams who push the envelope in areas of the game (Argentina at scrum time, the Lions in Oz at the line-out, several teams in the tackle, NZ in their rucking, England in their play on the ground) will pick up penalties now and again in those areas. And they'll also do things they're not penalised for but should be. But they'll also spend a lot of time on the right side of the line, playing the game to their strengths.
If refs are told that computer analysis shows they should watch out for X, I think there's a risk that they'll blow up too many "false positives". And if teams can't do what they're best at, for fear of penalties, you're running a risk of making the tournament a uniform affair. Not a good thing.
Fortunately, I'm paranoid from lack of sleep....
"In a way, however, they were beaten before they started, not so much by Australia, but by technology. For this World Cup a new software package has been developed that has provided the International Rugby Board and its referees with the means of analysing where and why individual countries tend to concede penalties.
Details of the past 50 awarded against every team have been fed into a computer. The results give an instant breakdown to which referees can refer in the build-up to a match. In short, they are better prepared and know what to look for. The danger is that it may lead to referees officiating according to their perceptions rather than what they see with the naked eye.
In Argentina’s case, their tricks of the trade in the scrum would appear to have been exposed. At four of the first nine scrums Paul Honiss, the New Zealand referee, awarded free kicks against them, primarily for failing to engage straight. They became increasingly frustrated and wary of further infringement. With their forwards emasculated, Argentina had nowhere to turn."
In a way, this is just an extension of ref's impressions of the key areas to watch before a game. However, there's a real risk here.
Teams who push the envelope in areas of the game (Argentina at scrum time, the Lions in Oz at the line-out, several teams in the tackle, NZ in their rucking, England in their play on the ground) will pick up penalties now and again in those areas. And they'll also do things they're not penalised for but should be. But they'll also spend a lot of time on the right side of the line, playing the game to their strengths.
If refs are told that computer analysis shows they should watch out for X, I think there's a risk that they'll blow up too many "false positives". And if teams can't do what they're best at, for fear of penalties, you're running a risk of making the tournament a uniform affair. Not a good thing.
Fortunately, I'm paranoid from lack of sleep....
Comments, France - Fiji
Warning - I'm now feeling my sleep deprivation, and have started typing thoughts in real-time, ready to post. So they may
make no sense after the fact, or out of order...
1) The choir now seems less impressive. It may be the most lyrical performance of the Marseilles that I've ever heard. However, it misses much of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" feel of the song, with the Marseilles regiment marching to battle to plough fields with impure blood.
On the other hand, the spiritual stylings applied to the Fijian anthem seemed very appropriate. Perhaps a less consistent musical style between the singers, allowing for each anthem to be sung in the "right" way, would be best.
I'm sure there will be rugby in a second for me to talk about...
2) Seems my speculation that Fiji could do well int his game is paying off - this is the first game where the "minnow" got points on the board first. And Fiji have also scored a nice little try to open the game up. 6-8 as I write to Fiji, and it looks like a very big crowd, most of whom look like Fiji fans from the selective crowd shots shown...
3) I don't know how to spell "Thau-thau"'s name. That's how they're pronouncing it. And it's a run from 30 yards from his own line, all the way to under the posts. Great try, converted. But now it's 24-18 (there were a couple of French tries before the half, built using pretty decent standard of play). Let's see how Fiji do.
4) There was an appearance that a Fijian player may have been biting in the little brawl that kicked off after a dangerous tackle. The Fijian's face was pressed into Betsen's neck, he messed about with the face with his hand, and then Betsen pushed him up putting a hand to the Fijian's mouth. Does that mean he was trying to stop something very bad, or was it coincidental. Player from each team to the bin for punching, which leaves lots of stuff for the citing commissioner to deal with...
5) The score sure seemed to rocket up at the end. France, I think, have had the best first outing of the big teams we've seen so far. They took on a decent side who game them challenges around the field (though not in the scrum), and in the end put them away. Ireland were pushed harder, but by a lesser team, I feel. Fiji played good rugby, and France responded in kind. Best match of the 4 so far.
make no sense after the fact, or out of order...
1) The choir now seems less impressive. It may be the most lyrical performance of the Marseilles that I've ever heard. However, it misses much of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" feel of the song, with the Marseilles regiment marching to battle to plough fields with impure blood.
On the other hand, the spiritual stylings applied to the Fijian anthem seemed very appropriate. Perhaps a less consistent musical style between the singers, allowing for each anthem to be sung in the "right" way, would be best.
I'm sure there will be rugby in a second for me to talk about...
2) Seems my speculation that Fiji could do well int his game is paying off - this is the first game where the "minnow" got points on the board first. And Fiji have also scored a nice little try to open the game up. 6-8 as I write to Fiji, and it looks like a very big crowd, most of whom look like Fiji fans from the selective crowd shots shown...
3) I don't know how to spell "Thau-thau"'s name. That's how they're pronouncing it. And it's a run from 30 yards from his own line, all the way to under the posts. Great try, converted. But now it's 24-18 (there were a couple of French tries before the half, built using pretty decent standard of play). Let's see how Fiji do.
4) There was an appearance that a Fijian player may have been biting in the little brawl that kicked off after a dangerous tackle. The Fijian's face was pressed into Betsen's neck, he messed about with the face with his hand, and then Betsen pushed him up putting a hand to the Fijian's mouth. Does that mean he was trying to stop something very bad, or was it coincidental. Player from each team to the bin for punching, which leaves lots of stuff for the citing commissioner to deal with...
5) The score sure seemed to rocket up at the end. France, I think, have had the best first outing of the big teams we've seen so far. They took on a decent side who game them challenges around the field (though not in the scrum), and in the end put them away. Ireland were pushed harder, but by a lesser team, I feel. Fiji played good rugby, and France responded in kind. Best match of the 4 so far.
Comments, Ireland - Romania
1) I said choirs were a good idea - the Irish one includes an absolutely cracking brunette. Classical Irish looks, and a great advertisment for the game... Oh dear, how sexist...
2) The Romanian scrum is immense. Not what I'd been expecting at all. I'd be interested to know if their front row is playing for French clubs. Things changed about 50 mins in (?) when Balan (sp?), their loosehead prop, took a knock, was down for a couple of minutes, and at the next scrum Romania were shoved all over the place. Apparently, he's ranked the 6th best prop in France, which is high praise, and shows that the Romanian players getting games over there are developing well.
3) The score's not massive. Relatively to the last time out, when Keith Wood scored 4 tries, this is pretty good. Romania have come on a long way since they were obliterated at Twickenham 134-0. They're a respectable third tier side now, I'd say. Apparently they're moving from semi-professional to professional after the World Cup, and good luck to them. If they can get a decent programme of matches, and player release from French clubs, then things could go well for them. I hope.
4) As I was typing this, they got a final consolation score, through a good bit of play. I suspect Ireland have more in the tank than they showed today, but Romania put on a good show that could have been 10-15 points better with a good kicker and a fast wing or two. Good stuff.
5) I love sports grounds with palm trees at the ends. Well done that ground designer...
6) The refs are taking a slightly erratic attitude to injuries. There's been a lot of play continuing with several players down, people on the pitch treating them, etc. Sure, play to the stoppage. But it's unusual to restart with players injured on the field. This is particularly odd given that the first match was stopped for 10 minutes due to an injury (David Giffen was knocked out and taken to hospital - he's OK now, thankfully), and for a player to tape up a wedding ring (?!??!?!??!?). So why you have to disadvantage teams by making them play a scrum short a back (etc) is beyond me.
Well, strictly not - I expect it involves the great god TVschedules.
7) I think Ireland have to improve if they're going to get through comfortably. However, their bonus point for four tries puts them top of group today, so well done to them.
2) The Romanian scrum is immense. Not what I'd been expecting at all. I'd be interested to know if their front row is playing for French clubs. Things changed about 50 mins in (?) when Balan (sp?), their loosehead prop, took a knock, was down for a couple of minutes, and at the next scrum Romania were shoved all over the place. Apparently, he's ranked the 6th best prop in France, which is high praise, and shows that the Romanian players getting games over there are developing well.
3) The score's not massive. Relatively to the last time out, when Keith Wood scored 4 tries, this is pretty good. Romania have come on a long way since they were obliterated at Twickenham 134-0. They're a respectable third tier side now, I'd say. Apparently they're moving from semi-professional to professional after the World Cup, and good luck to them. If they can get a decent programme of matches, and player release from French clubs, then things could go well for them. I hope.
4) As I was typing this, they got a final consolation score, through a good bit of play. I suspect Ireland have more in the tank than they showed today, but Romania put on a good show that could have been 10-15 points better with a good kicker and a fast wing or two. Good stuff.
5) I love sports grounds with palm trees at the ends. Well done that ground designer...
6) The refs are taking a slightly erratic attitude to injuries. There's been a lot of play continuing with several players down, people on the pitch treating them, etc. Sure, play to the stoppage. But it's unusual to restart with players injured on the field. This is particularly odd given that the first match was stopped for 10 minutes due to an injury (David Giffen was knocked out and taken to hospital - he's OK now, thankfully), and for a player to tape up a wedding ring (?!??!?!??!?). So why you have to disadvantage teams by making them play a scrum short a back (etc) is beyond me.
Well, strictly not - I expect it involves the great god TVschedules.
7) I think Ireland have to improve if they're going to get through comfortably. However, their bonus point for four tries puts them top of group today, so well done to them.
Comments, New Zealand - Italy
1) Carlos can't kick for toffee. As Ieuan Evans put it re the Argentinian hooker yesterday, "he couldn't hit a banjo from five yards". Suggesting ITV basing their commentary team in the UK wasn't necessarily a good idea for 5 am games...
2) Given that they're doing commentary from the UK, we seem to have dragged up a lot of the big names to do ITV's studio work. I've seen Michael Lynagh, Sean Fitzpatrick, Will Carling, Ieuan Evans and Francois Pinnear so far. All legends of the game (Carling less for his play than his captaincy). Three world cup winners, a finalist, a victorious British Lion. Not bad. So why aren't they camped out in Australia for 6 weeks? Will they disappear from our screens for the later stages?
3) Italy played with a great deal of heart. The decision to pick a second string team was probably the right one from a strategic point of view. As I type this, it's 65 minutes in and the margin's 42 points. A full side might have kept that down a little, but not to less than 7 points. And without a bonus point on show for it, it doesn't seem worth risking players who could win matches against the rest of the group.
Bonus points aren't
4) Another try for NZ, by my man of the match, Daniel Carter. A pretty demonstration of the benefits of the NZ 2nd five-eighth system, where your inside centre is effectively another fly-half. England played the system when Catt and Wilkinson were combining, and it could be very effective. We tried it again this year with Wilkinson and Hodgson. Unfortunatley, Charlie picked up an injury that cost him his season and his plane ticket to Australia.
I've personally thought that one of the best things for England rugby would be if Newcastle played Dave Walder and Jonny Wilkinson as a 10-12 combo in club matches. This would build a potential partnership for the national team, and would develop Walder as a more plausible back-up fly-half than playing full-back when Jonny's available for the club.#
In any case, Spenser and Carter make for a great combination, and it'll be good to see more of how they go in the knock-out stages against quality defences.
5) Injuries - New Zealand are in an odd position. The other big name teams have a serious game or two in their groups. If you open with a big game, as Australia effectively did, then you should start with your best team. Easy. If your second game is a big one, you should probably open with your best team, as England are doing. If it's at the end, as Ireland-Australia is, you may take a structured approach to your group, and build to it. In the end, you need your best players to have a match together, if possible, before your big game, and you need them for that game. Your hand is forced, and you risk injuries as you go.
But New Zealand don't have any big games in their group. Come the quarter finals, they expect England or South Africa, and must have a good side ready. You don't really need to play your best team before the last group match. On the other hand, with a very young team, New Zealand have motive to play their best team in all games, to build up familiarity and experience for the later stages.
This approach may have cost them Tana Umaga for a couple of matches, and looked like Carlos Spenser was injured and in trouble. And Rocokoco looked like he was stiffening up (probably just from cramp, but we'll see).
For the sake of the tournament, it'd be great if they're all OK for the next game.
6) Yes, it's a bug-bear of mine. But I think that Richie McCaw had, if not a curate's egg of a match, an Archbishop's egg. It may be mostly very good, but the unfortunate label of the "the best rugby player in the world" (never...) draws my eye relentlessly to knock-ons with the line approaching, etc. I'm a petty, petty man Bart...
7) Italy seem to be improving. 70-7 is a big score, but this was Italy twos. In the first world cup, Italy lost 70-6 to New Zealand when tries were only worth 4 points. That implies a modern score of about 82-7. And last world cup, Italy were hammered at Huddersfield (with me there, chanting "Azzuri"...), letting in more than 100 points without a try in reply. I think that their first team can win a couple of games, if they play well, which would be impressive.
8) NZ picked up a decent score, applied themselves well in the second half, and generally should be pretty happy with how it went. Their players got a chance to shake off the rust, and will hopefully gel for the tournament, putting on a good show.
2) Given that they're doing commentary from the UK, we seem to have dragged up a lot of the big names to do ITV's studio work. I've seen Michael Lynagh, Sean Fitzpatrick, Will Carling, Ieuan Evans and Francois Pinnear so far. All legends of the game (Carling less for his play than his captaincy). Three world cup winners, a finalist, a victorious British Lion. Not bad. So why aren't they camped out in Australia for 6 weeks? Will they disappear from our screens for the later stages?
3) Italy played with a great deal of heart. The decision to pick a second string team was probably the right one from a strategic point of view. As I type this, it's 65 minutes in and the margin's 42 points. A full side might have kept that down a little, but not to less than 7 points. And without a bonus point on show for it, it doesn't seem worth risking players who could win matches against the rest of the group.
Bonus points aren't
4) Another try for NZ, by my man of the match, Daniel Carter. A pretty demonstration of the benefits of the NZ 2nd five-eighth system, where your inside centre is effectively another fly-half. England played the system when Catt and Wilkinson were combining, and it could be very effective. We tried it again this year with Wilkinson and Hodgson. Unfortunatley, Charlie picked up an injury that cost him his season and his plane ticket to Australia.
I've personally thought that one of the best things for England rugby would be if Newcastle played Dave Walder and Jonny Wilkinson as a 10-12 combo in club matches. This would build a potential partnership for the national team, and would develop Walder as a more plausible back-up fly-half than playing full-back when Jonny's available for the club.#
In any case, Spenser and Carter make for a great combination, and it'll be good to see more of how they go in the knock-out stages against quality defences.
5) Injuries - New Zealand are in an odd position. The other big name teams have a serious game or two in their groups. If you open with a big game, as Australia effectively did, then you should start with your best team. Easy. If your second game is a big one, you should probably open with your best team, as England are doing. If it's at the end, as Ireland-Australia is, you may take a structured approach to your group, and build to it. In the end, you need your best players to have a match together, if possible, before your big game, and you need them for that game. Your hand is forced, and you risk injuries as you go.
But New Zealand don't have any big games in their group. Come the quarter finals, they expect England or South Africa, and must have a good side ready. You don't really need to play your best team before the last group match. On the other hand, with a very young team, New Zealand have motive to play their best team in all games, to build up familiarity and experience for the later stages.
This approach may have cost them Tana Umaga for a couple of matches, and looked like Carlos Spenser was injured and in trouble. And Rocokoco looked like he was stiffening up (probably just from cramp, but we'll see).
For the sake of the tournament, it'd be great if they're all OK for the next game.
6) Yes, it's a bug-bear of mine. But I think that Richie McCaw had, if not a curate's egg of a match, an Archbishop's egg. It may be mostly very good, but the unfortunate label of the "the best rugby player in the world" (never...) draws my eye relentlessly to knock-ons with the line approaching, etc. I'm a petty, petty man Bart...
7) Italy seem to be improving. 70-7 is a big score, but this was Italy twos. In the first world cup, Italy lost 70-6 to New Zealand when tries were only worth 4 points. That implies a modern score of about 82-7. And last world cup, Italy were hammered at Huddersfield (with me there, chanting "Azzuri"...), letting in more than 100 points without a try in reply. I think that their first team can win a couple of games, if they play well, which would be impressive.
8) NZ picked up a decent score, applied themselves well in the second half, and generally should be pretty happy with how it went. Their players got a chance to shake off the rust, and will hopefully gel for the tournament, putting on a good show.
Comments, opening match
1) Not fair - had work duties preventing me watching more than the first 20 mins. The game opened up some later, or so it seems. But my impression had been that the Argentinians were blown out of the game in the early stages. 4 line-outs in a row called not straight: one was very clearly crooked, others less so... A couple of free kicks for pushing early in the scrum, which can be very hard to call fairly.
Seems (taking in the NZ game too) that the refs are trying to keep a very clean game at the set-piece. That may encourage spectacle (may...), but it can damage the overall goal of having competitive games, ideally with minor nations having an opportunity to win or challenge. And requiring perfection to compete at the set-pieces isn't likely to give them their chances. On the other hand, you don't want world cups reffed the same way my sunday social games can be, with the refs letting it slide if the ball's out...
2) Looked a nice opening ceremony, particularly the animated player scoring a (very slow) try. The idea of a choir of two singers from each nation seems particularly a good idea - they sound much better than the usual anthem singers Australia and New Zealand tend to rope in to lead things off. I wish I could sing well enough to play a part in that...
3) Australia were apparently looking to play an open and flowing game, and it's hard to see that was where they were heading. There was a beautiful build-up to the first try, in particular with a classic demonstration of creating space on the left wing. Looping the tackled player to keep creating the option, stretching the defence, and then bringing the ball right to build it up. However, they spent a lot of time kicking and playing percentages during the part I watched - I'd be interested to see where they go for the rest of the game and tournament.
4) More to come, when I've finished watching the tape. Far too much rugby on right now to do anything other than grab a paper, some bacon, and settle back in front of the TV.
5) If that seems biased, why do you think I got our Aussie commentators on board...
Seems (taking in the NZ game too) that the refs are trying to keep a very clean game at the set-piece. That may encourage spectacle (may...), but it can damage the overall goal of having competitive games, ideally with minor nations having an opportunity to win or challenge. And requiring perfection to compete at the set-pieces isn't likely to give them their chances. On the other hand, you don't want world cups reffed the same way my sunday social games can be, with the refs letting it slide if the ball's out...
2) Looked a nice opening ceremony, particularly the animated player scoring a (very slow) try. The idea of a choir of two singers from each nation seems particularly a good idea - they sound much better than the usual anthem singers Australia and New Zealand tend to rope in to lead things off. I wish I could sing well enough to play a part in that...
3) Australia were apparently looking to play an open and flowing game, and it's hard to see that was where they were heading. There was a beautiful build-up to the first try, in particular with a classic demonstration of creating space on the left wing. Looping the tackled player to keep creating the option, stretching the defence, and then bringing the ball right to build it up. However, they spent a lot of time kicking and playing percentages during the part I watched - I'd be interested to see where they go for the rest of the game and tournament.
4) More to come, when I've finished watching the tape. Far too much rugby on right now to do anything other than grab a paper, some bacon, and settle back in front of the TV.
5) If that seems biased, why do you think I got our Aussie commentators on board...
We'll count that one, thank you very much
Australia has copped some tough reviews on its performance against the Argies in the Cup opener. OK, the Wallabies are still a long way from serving notice, but that performance will do for mine.
Most of the criticism depends on you holding a very miserable view of the Argentinian team, which I don't. OK, the Argies had a bad night in the line-outs. But more generally, the fact that they never really looked like taking the game was a big credit to a distinctly superior Australian performance.
The good Wallaby points were many, but none so good as the lead-up to Sailor's try. That was vintage stuff. I'm trying to remember the last time I saw the team launch a glorious raid like that. Gregan's service was excellent overall, and Bernie Larkham was just on fire in the first half. The key was cutting out Flats ... who only received two first half balls from Bernie ... which brought our long lost outside powerhouse into the play. Rogers, who is now a fully integrated union player, along with Burke, Roff and Sailor, are going to disturb every team if they can keep getting that kind of ball.
In the forwards, Lyons had the best international of his career to date, and this eases the concern about Kef's and Finegan's absence. The mid-field defence was very solid. Our breakaways were magic. Bill Young showed the makings of the forward leader we still need in John Eales's place ... and, after that work-out, I'm thinking the front row may just end up a pretty damn formidable outfit by the time we get to the deep end of these proceedings.
The team was never going to be clinical first up. And there's an awful lot of finish still to be found. Yet this performance was an advance on the team's last showing against the Blacks in my book. OK, all the big questions remain far from firmly answered, but I reckon we can take some heart from that outing. A good start.
P.S. Curses upon the commercialism that's creeping insidiously all over the game they play in heaven. If, instead of maximising television revenue, the game had been played in mid-afternoon ... like God always mean't it to be ... there would have been no handling-interrupting dew on the ground. Curses.
Most of the criticism depends on you holding a very miserable view of the Argentinian team, which I don't. OK, the Argies had a bad night in the line-outs. But more generally, the fact that they never really looked like taking the game was a big credit to a distinctly superior Australian performance.
The good Wallaby points were many, but none so good as the lead-up to Sailor's try. That was vintage stuff. I'm trying to remember the last time I saw the team launch a glorious raid like that. Gregan's service was excellent overall, and Bernie Larkham was just on fire in the first half. The key was cutting out Flats ... who only received two first half balls from Bernie ... which brought our long lost outside powerhouse into the play. Rogers, who is now a fully integrated union player, along with Burke, Roff and Sailor, are going to disturb every team if they can keep getting that kind of ball.
In the forwards, Lyons had the best international of his career to date, and this eases the concern about Kef's and Finegan's absence. The mid-field defence was very solid. Our breakaways were magic. Bill Young showed the makings of the forward leader we still need in John Eales's place ... and, after that work-out, I'm thinking the front row may just end up a pretty damn formidable outfit by the time we get to the deep end of these proceedings.
The team was never going to be clinical first up. And there's an awful lot of finish still to be found. Yet this performance was an advance on the team's last showing against the Blacks in my book. OK, all the big questions remain far from firmly answered, but I reckon we can take some heart from that outing. A good start.
P.S. Curses upon the commercialism that's creeping insidiously all over the game they play in heaven. If, instead of maximising television revenue, the game had been played in mid-afternoon ... like God always mean't it to be ... there would have been no handling-interrupting dew on the ground. Curses.
Opener follows the script
Australia did what was required of them and won their opening match of the World Cup, beating Argentina 24 to 8. The game was a tad scrappy and although Australia hardly played impressive Rugby, it was enough for me that they won. I was deeply nervous before the game, having heard good reports of Argentina, and I must admit to having little faith in the Wallabies anymore.
It would have been a dreadful letdown had the Hosts lost on opening night. That would have been like having your girlfriend running off with your best mate at the High School ball.
With that hurdle cleared, ever so inelegantly it might have been, the Australians have to concentrate on the Irish. If Argentina beat Ireland, which is not impossible, I guess, the Australians might still miss out on the Quater finals.
Heh. At least we won the first one.
It would have been a dreadful letdown had the Hosts lost on opening night. That would have been like having your girlfriend running off with your best mate at the High School ball.
With that hurdle cleared, ever so inelegantly it might have been, the Australians have to concentrate on the Irish. If Argentina beat Ireland, which is not impossible, I guess, the Australians might still miss out on the Quater finals.
Heh. At least we won the first one.
Thursday, October 09, 2003
Come on down, there's room for some
Whilst the opening ceremony promises to be spectacular (that's what it says on the card...), there need to be other kinds of fireworks if the tournament is to be a success, not just ones on the harbour bridge.
I.e. - I agree with Mick Cleary. The tournament needs the "supporting actors" to put on a show.
"[I]f the World Cup is to be judged a success, then less familiar names have to catch our eye and distract our pre-programmed attention. We need to be eager to catch glimpses of Fijian wing Rupeni Caucaunibuca, or tuning in to see whether Namibia's Rudie van Vuuren can deliver a rugby ball to its target with the same accuracy that he managed with a cricket ball earlier in the year at that sport's own World Cup. There are gaggles of Samoans, Japanese, Canadians and Uruguayans, all waiting to showcase their own particular talents. If they give us cause to pause, then it will be a triumph in its own right.
These countries know that they cannot compete with the very best. The interest will be in seeing if they can better themselves, rather than others. That is the criterion by which to judge this World Cup. There is an evident divide between the elite and the second tier. It will be not be bridged in this tournament. It is a legitimate concern that too many lop-sided contests will undermine the status of the World Cup, and call into question its right to be considered a truly global event. We will know far more on that front in about a month's time."
Personally, I'm looking forward to a number of potentially enthralling matches between "lesser" teams, and a couple of games where, though I doubt an upset, I have just a sneaking feeling there may be one.
So - matches I'm hoping for something special from (let's assume games between the big boys will be good):
Australia - Argentina: real potential for an upset in the opener. I'd say no better than a 1 in 4 chance. But it's there, particularly with Oz picking a new prop to face Argentina.
France - Fiji: last world cup, Fiji deserved to win in the group stages. They have a couple of killer players, and could, just could, pull a rabbit out the hat (1 in 6?).
Everyone in Wales group - anyone but NZ: Wales were shambolic at times in the summer, and lost to Italy in the 6N. Maybe they've sorted things out (I hope so for Wlesh friends), but Canada, Italy or Tonga each have a chance. I'd say 1 in 6 for Canada or Italy, and 1 in 8 for Tonga - Canada face them in the first match, and that's the prime time for an upset (and the reason for the low odds for Oz and France's first games).
Fiji-USA: Fiji are better, but have only three days rest from their game against France. I suspect they're vulnerable. No odds from here on in...
If Georgia are better than expected up front - Georgia-Samoa: a great clash of styles - gritty forwards and backs that look that way, vs flair players with massive tackling ability
If Georgia are about where you expect - Georgia-Uruguay: a different clash of styles - a side successful for a small nation in sevens, vs the team with the "incredlemente fuerte Uruguayan pack". A game that really touched me in 1999 was Uruguay's pack against Spain's backs. Each did respectably against South Africa, together they coulda been a contender...
South Africa-Uruguay: South Africa will win, but in the 1999 World Cup Uruguay's incredlemente fuerte pack held them for a surprisingly long time. Could be good stuff for forwards fans.
So. Set your videos, your text alerts, your excuses to leave meetings and work, and sit back and enjoy the show. I'll be back when I've seen some rugby.
I.e. - I agree with Mick Cleary. The tournament needs the "supporting actors" to put on a show.
"[I]f the World Cup is to be judged a success, then less familiar names have to catch our eye and distract our pre-programmed attention. We need to be eager to catch glimpses of Fijian wing Rupeni Caucaunibuca, or tuning in to see whether Namibia's Rudie van Vuuren can deliver a rugby ball to its target with the same accuracy that he managed with a cricket ball earlier in the year at that sport's own World Cup. There are gaggles of Samoans, Japanese, Canadians and Uruguayans, all waiting to showcase their own particular talents. If they give us cause to pause, then it will be a triumph in its own right.
These countries know that they cannot compete with the very best. The interest will be in seeing if they can better themselves, rather than others. That is the criterion by which to judge this World Cup. There is an evident divide between the elite and the second tier. It will be not be bridged in this tournament. It is a legitimate concern that too many lop-sided contests will undermine the status of the World Cup, and call into question its right to be considered a truly global event. We will know far more on that front in about a month's time."
Personally, I'm looking forward to a number of potentially enthralling matches between "lesser" teams, and a couple of games where, though I doubt an upset, I have just a sneaking feeling there may be one.
So - matches I'm hoping for something special from (let's assume games between the big boys will be good):
Australia - Argentina: real potential for an upset in the opener. I'd say no better than a 1 in 4 chance. But it's there, particularly with Oz picking a new prop to face Argentina.
France - Fiji: last world cup, Fiji deserved to win in the group stages. They have a couple of killer players, and could, just could, pull a rabbit out the hat (1 in 6?).
Everyone in Wales group - anyone but NZ: Wales were shambolic at times in the summer, and lost to Italy in the 6N. Maybe they've sorted things out (I hope so for Wlesh friends), but Canada, Italy or Tonga each have a chance. I'd say 1 in 6 for Canada or Italy, and 1 in 8 for Tonga - Canada face them in the first match, and that's the prime time for an upset (and the reason for the low odds for Oz and France's first games).
Fiji-USA: Fiji are better, but have only three days rest from their game against France. I suspect they're vulnerable. No odds from here on in...
If Georgia are better than expected up front - Georgia-Samoa: a great clash of styles - gritty forwards and backs that look that way, vs flair players with massive tackling ability
If Georgia are about where you expect - Georgia-Uruguay: a different clash of styles - a side successful for a small nation in sevens, vs the team with the "incredlemente fuerte Uruguayan pack". A game that really touched me in 1999 was Uruguay's pack against Spain's backs. Each did respectably against South Africa, together they coulda been a contender...
South Africa-Uruguay: South Africa will win, but in the 1999 World Cup Uruguay's incredlemente fuerte pack held them for a surprisingly long time. Could be good stuff for forwards fans.
So. Set your videos, your text alerts, your excuses to leave meetings and work, and sit back and enjoy the show. I'll be back when I've seen some rugby.
Eagles feather their nests
Took a bit of looking, but eventually saw something on the US Eagles Sports Illustrated seem more low key this year than when they put the captain on the cover in 99. However, that means they have a nice newswire of stories on other teams, which may be worth a peek (some stories on other sports...):
"BRISBANE, Australia (AP) -- While most teams can't wait to get their rugby union World Cup started to release the nerves, the U.S. Eagles are eager to watch as the opening weekend unfolds.
When the Eagles face Fiji in Brisbane on Oct. 15, they'll have been in Australia for two weeks and will be facing an opposition recovering from a match against France on the opening weekend.
"It's such a luxury for us," said Tom Billups, who played in the 1999 World Cup and returns this time as coach. "We typically only have four or five days to prepare a team for a test, so we have to go at it like we're killing snakes.
"We're used to getting a lot done in a very short amount of time and in a very detail oriented environment, so it's nice for us to be able to have as much time to prepare as this.""
"BRISBANE, Australia (AP) -- While most teams can't wait to get their rugby union World Cup started to release the nerves, the U.S. Eagles are eager to watch as the opening weekend unfolds.
When the Eagles face Fiji in Brisbane on Oct. 15, they'll have been in Australia for two weeks and will be facing an opposition recovering from a match against France on the opening weekend.
"It's such a luxury for us," said Tom Billups, who played in the 1999 World Cup and returns this time as coach. "We typically only have four or five days to prepare a team for a test, so we have to go at it like we're killing snakes.
"We're used to getting a lot done in a very short amount of time and in a very detail oriented environment, so it's nice for us to be able to have as much time to prepare as this.""
What will happen on the 18th
England-South Africa, perhaps the key match in the pool stages, is on the 18th, and there's been a lot of speculation. A South African commentator, who may be joining us soon, has seen the future:
"If you've read this bored over the last few months you'll know exactly what's going to happen in Perth on October 18 ...
On the day of the game the city of Perth will be overrun with boneheaded yarpie oafs all sporting mustaches and Springbok rugby jerseys that are so tight around their beer-bellies that they had to have been purchased back when the Springboks were a feared rugby team and the rand was still worth more than a ha'penny. The drunken yarpie louts will be swearing at the locals and headbutting the ones that look even slightly dark, all the time demanding racial segregation at the stadium and denying the morning headline story that more than half the England squad had been food-poisoned.
In stark contrast, in among the rampaging Boers will be knots of brave and noble Englishmen, bringing charm, wit and culture to the occasion. They'll be handling the news of their team's food-poisoning disaster with grace and dignity. With determined jaw they head for the stadium, hoping against hope that Jonno and Jonny weren't among the worst poisoned while saving small black kids in wheelchairs from yarpie sjamboks along the way. Inside the stadium the atmosphere is fantastic. The English fans are in good voice and the booze is flowing. The yarpies are already pissed and are either racially abusing all the black people, trying to give Krugerrands and gold watches to the ref and his assistants or trying to poison the beers of anyone wearing white.
The English are mightily relieved and roar their approval when they hear that Jonno and Jonny will be playing but the news is tempered by the fact that almost half the team are too ill to play. They have only three players fit for the bench and one of those is puking his guts out. Only after the game is it discovered that Jonno and Jonny played the entire match wracked with the worst of the poison, but such was their greatness and their magnificence that they didn't tell the team doctor or the coach, choosing rather to play through the pain.
After an emotional rendition of GSTQ (spoiled by yarpie booing), the game begins. It becomes immediately apparent that the steroid-crazed yarpie thugs have only one aim and that is to concuss, maim or rip the eyes out the English players. For a while, it seems the English resolve might crack as the referee turns a blind eye to the blatant yarpie thuggery. The brutality is unprecedented. The yarpies tackle high and late, they punch, they stamp and they headbutt. The English team medics are running from one stricken player to another ... and then, just when it seems the situation is getting out of hand, captain Jonno says 'Enough'. With one mighty blow, he knocks the entire yarpie tight 5 out cold. The referee blows his whistle for the first time in the match, gives a penalty to the yarpies and shows Jonno a yellow card. The English players, their bodies wearied by a constant barrage of punches, high tackles and other acts of thuggery, watch almost in disbelief as their captain leaves the field. The yarpie kick at goal is successful and they lead 3-0.
For the 10 minutes that Jonno is off the field, the English character is tested to the full. Outnumbered, the English have to repel wave after wave of savage yarpie attacks. Poisoned, bloodied and in many cases concussed, the English players are heroic in defence. The line is stretched but never breached. When Jonno returns to rejoin the battle, the English forwards finally begin to take control and just before half time, the ball goes wide to Cohen who scores the first try of the match. Jonny converts and it's 7-3 at half time.
The second half begins as the first began, with the yarpies swinging wildly, sometimes even concussing their own players in their rabid frenzy. The superior English skill and talent is starting to tell though. Jonny is getting a constant supply of ball from Jonno and he starts dictating the match. With Jonny running through gaps and bewildering the dull-witted yarpies with his tactical kicking, the tries start to come. Robinson scores in the corner. Greenwood and Tindall go over. Then it's Hilly and Dally who score. Cohen gets another and then it's Jonno who scores a splendid try, carrying half the yarpie forwards on his back. By now it's a rout. The score is past 53-3 and climbing. Jonny is converting everything. Cohen gets his hat-trick, Thompson and Backy both score, Jonny scores a try of his own, having to dodge Piet van Zyl on the way to the tryline. Piet van Zyl is removed from the field but not before dislocating the ref's shoulder. A new ref replaces him and even though he's been bribed by the yarpie officials, he is powerless to stop the massacre.
As the hooter goes, the ball comes to Jonny, he looks up at the scoreboard and sees it's 98-3. A drop kick will bring up the century. Heavily bandaged, his head covered in stitches and still wracked with pain from the food poison, Jonny side steps a yarpie attempt to behead him, slips inside another stiff arm tackle and steadies himself for a drop kick from the half way line. He connects sweetly just before a Corne Krige haymaker concusses him but the ball sails high between the posts. 101-3. The whistle goes for the end of the game.
While the yarpies whine about the reffing and make outrageously stupid comments in the TV interviews, the English are gracious and humble in victory.
Just like they always are. "
"If you've read this bored over the last few months you'll know exactly what's going to happen in Perth on October 18 ...
On the day of the game the city of Perth will be overrun with boneheaded yarpie oafs all sporting mustaches and Springbok rugby jerseys that are so tight around their beer-bellies that they had to have been purchased back when the Springboks were a feared rugby team and the rand was still worth more than a ha'penny. The drunken yarpie louts will be swearing at the locals and headbutting the ones that look even slightly dark, all the time demanding racial segregation at the stadium and denying the morning headline story that more than half the England squad had been food-poisoned.
In stark contrast, in among the rampaging Boers will be knots of brave and noble Englishmen, bringing charm, wit and culture to the occasion. They'll be handling the news of their team's food-poisoning disaster with grace and dignity. With determined jaw they head for the stadium, hoping against hope that Jonno and Jonny weren't among the worst poisoned while saving small black kids in wheelchairs from yarpie sjamboks along the way. Inside the stadium the atmosphere is fantastic. The English fans are in good voice and the booze is flowing. The yarpies are already pissed and are either racially abusing all the black people, trying to give Krugerrands and gold watches to the ref and his assistants or trying to poison the beers of anyone wearing white.
The English are mightily relieved and roar their approval when they hear that Jonno and Jonny will be playing but the news is tempered by the fact that almost half the team are too ill to play. They have only three players fit for the bench and one of those is puking his guts out. Only after the game is it discovered that Jonno and Jonny played the entire match wracked with the worst of the poison, but such was their greatness and their magnificence that they didn't tell the team doctor or the coach, choosing rather to play through the pain.
After an emotional rendition of GSTQ (spoiled by yarpie booing), the game begins. It becomes immediately apparent that the steroid-crazed yarpie thugs have only one aim and that is to concuss, maim or rip the eyes out the English players. For a while, it seems the English resolve might crack as the referee turns a blind eye to the blatant yarpie thuggery. The brutality is unprecedented. The yarpies tackle high and late, they punch, they stamp and they headbutt. The English team medics are running from one stricken player to another ... and then, just when it seems the situation is getting out of hand, captain Jonno says 'Enough'. With one mighty blow, he knocks the entire yarpie tight 5 out cold. The referee blows his whistle for the first time in the match, gives a penalty to the yarpies and shows Jonno a yellow card. The English players, their bodies wearied by a constant barrage of punches, high tackles and other acts of thuggery, watch almost in disbelief as their captain leaves the field. The yarpie kick at goal is successful and they lead 3-0.
For the 10 minutes that Jonno is off the field, the English character is tested to the full. Outnumbered, the English have to repel wave after wave of savage yarpie attacks. Poisoned, bloodied and in many cases concussed, the English players are heroic in defence. The line is stretched but never breached. When Jonno returns to rejoin the battle, the English forwards finally begin to take control and just before half time, the ball goes wide to Cohen who scores the first try of the match. Jonny converts and it's 7-3 at half time.
The second half begins as the first began, with the yarpies swinging wildly, sometimes even concussing their own players in their rabid frenzy. The superior English skill and talent is starting to tell though. Jonny is getting a constant supply of ball from Jonno and he starts dictating the match. With Jonny running through gaps and bewildering the dull-witted yarpies with his tactical kicking, the tries start to come. Robinson scores in the corner. Greenwood and Tindall go over. Then it's Hilly and Dally who score. Cohen gets another and then it's Jonno who scores a splendid try, carrying half the yarpie forwards on his back. By now it's a rout. The score is past 53-3 and climbing. Jonny is converting everything. Cohen gets his hat-trick, Thompson and Backy both score, Jonny scores a try of his own, having to dodge Piet van Zyl on the way to the tryline. Piet van Zyl is removed from the field but not before dislocating the ref's shoulder. A new ref replaces him and even though he's been bribed by the yarpie officials, he is powerless to stop the massacre.
As the hooter goes, the ball comes to Jonny, he looks up at the scoreboard and sees it's 98-3. A drop kick will bring up the century. Heavily bandaged, his head covered in stitches and still wracked with pain from the food poison, Jonny side steps a yarpie attempt to behead him, slips inside another stiff arm tackle and steadies himself for a drop kick from the half way line. He connects sweetly just before a Corne Krige haymaker concusses him but the ball sails high between the posts. 101-3. The whistle goes for the end of the game.
While the yarpies whine about the reffing and make outrageously stupid comments in the TV interviews, the English are gracious and humble in victory.
Just like they always are. "
Champions don't waste time with fairytales.
From one point of view, the rise of Al Baxter to a prominent role in the Wallaby lineup is the sort of romantic fairytale that makes sports so enchanting. However, it is a plain fact that champion sides don't rely on neophytes. Baxter did the same thing that everyone else did and entered into the lottery to win the right to buy tickets to the games.
So even this blind Freddy knows that the Pumas are going to be targeting the prop in the World Cup opener. Al Baxter says he is ready.
May God have mercy on your soul, young man.
So even this blind Freddy knows that the Pumas are going to be targeting the prop in the World Cup opener. Al Baxter says he is ready.
May God have mercy on your soul, young man.
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
Another guide to players
The BBC has managed to put together a rather better guide to players than their "players to watch" series. This one's a bit cutesy, as it's aimed at kids. But it looks through some of the potential stars of the rugby world cup, split out into Speed Machines, Airborne Division (second rows), Bulldozers (hard yards front rowers), Ring Masters (yes, including Jonny...), Scavengers (open-side flankers), and Hard Hitters.
Sadly, due to him making himself unavailable for selection, Samoa's Trevor Leota, a ferocious tackler, isn't in the last category. But he has played for my club...
Pleasingly, there's a Japanese player in the mix, under "Bulldozer". I've never seen him play, but he sounds like a big boy:
"Ryo Yamamura (Japan)
Known as the rising star of Japan's pack, Yamamura is outdone by very few players on the field in terms of his sheer size.
Initially a sumo wrestler, his skill at bundling people out of his way has come equally in handy on the international rugby scene.
His scrummaging ability still leaves a lot to be desired but there is no questioning either his desire or his ability to achieve.
Back in Japan his celebrity status is not matched by his team-mates and he is tipped for a move to a higher profile club come the end of the World Cup."
Sadly, due to him making himself unavailable for selection, Samoa's Trevor Leota, a ferocious tackler, isn't in the last category. But he has played for my club...
Pleasingly, there's a Japanese player in the mix, under "Bulldozer". I've never seen him play, but he sounds like a big boy:
"Ryo Yamamura (Japan)
Known as the rising star of Japan's pack, Yamamura is outdone by very few players on the field in terms of his sheer size.
Initially a sumo wrestler, his skill at bundling people out of his way has come equally in handy on the international rugby scene.
His scrummaging ability still leaves a lot to be desired but there is no questioning either his desire or his ability to achieve.
Back in Japan his celebrity status is not matched by his team-mates and he is tipped for a move to a higher profile club come the end of the World Cup."
One for the laydeez, I feel - the most attractive players in the RWC
"B! Magazine have released their list of the top ten sexiest men in the RWC.
The lucky ones were: Joost van der Westhuizen (RSA), Andy Craig (SCO), Damien Traille and Frederic Michalak (FRA), Wendell Sailor (AUS), Andrea De Rossi (ITA), Steve Devine and Doug Howlett (NZ), Felipe Contepomi (ARG) and Jonny Wilkinson (ENG)."
Whilst I'm not qualified to put those into order, I think I can face putting up a little gallery.... In the above order:
(a clue - Contepomi is the prettier one being tackled).
The lucky ones were: Joost van der Westhuizen (RSA), Andy Craig (SCO), Damien Traille and Frederic Michalak (FRA), Wendell Sailor (AUS), Andrea De Rossi (ITA), Steve Devine and Doug Howlett (NZ), Felipe Contepomi (ARG) and Jonny Wilkinson (ENG)."
Whilst I'm not qualified to put those into order, I think I can face putting up a little gallery.... In the above order:
(a clue - Contepomi is the prettier one being tackled).
The Financial Times on rugby?
Yup - they cover it, just about. And they make some interesting points too. Italy haven't picked a full-strength team to face New Zealand, as they think it's a waste of time. But that's partly due to the group being much more competitive than it looks.
"While there are no certainties in sport, All Black qualification for the quarter-finals is pretty close to it. But the other four teams in their group - Canada, Italy, Tonga and Wales - are extremely closely matched. This is the one group from which any team could qualify, and each of the four is capable of beating any of the others.
Canada who play the All Blacks in their second match - squeezed between clashes with Wales and Italy - have hinted that they will follow Kirwan's lead. Coach Dave Clark said: "If we want to make the quarter-finals, then it's crucial we win those games against Wales and Italy, so obviously we have to look at the best way of preserving our players.
"It would be irresponsible for us to subject our players to such a debilitating exercise of playing three games in nine days and expect them to do well so, obviously, they will play against Wales then Italy."
Kirwan, who has protested that Italy must play four games in 14 days while Wales and the All Blacks will have nearly three weeks, judged it would be quixotic to field his best team in a match they would surely lose. Instead, their energies will be conserved for those they could win.
Playing against the All Blacks should be a career highlight for any player. But is it more important than the possibility of reaching the World Cup quarter-finals for the first time?
The tactic could backfire. Points difference is one of the tournament tie-breakers and a 100-point savaging by New Zealand could be a huge handicap, particularly if the chase for second takes on a "scissors, paper, stone" quality."
It's a pity the spacing of games and depth of resources isn't enough for everyone to play their full teams for every game. But that's the nature of rugby, and even with a 2 month tournament not every team would necessarily risk key players for every match. Still, the "Iron Man RWC" should be a setting on future rugby computer games...
"While there are no certainties in sport, All Black qualification for the quarter-finals is pretty close to it. But the other four teams in their group - Canada, Italy, Tonga and Wales - are extremely closely matched. This is the one group from which any team could qualify, and each of the four is capable of beating any of the others.
Canada who play the All Blacks in their second match - squeezed between clashes with Wales and Italy - have hinted that they will follow Kirwan's lead. Coach Dave Clark said: "If we want to make the quarter-finals, then it's crucial we win those games against Wales and Italy, so obviously we have to look at the best way of preserving our players.
"It would be irresponsible for us to subject our players to such a debilitating exercise of playing three games in nine days and expect them to do well so, obviously, they will play against Wales then Italy."
Kirwan, who has protested that Italy must play four games in 14 days while Wales and the All Blacks will have nearly three weeks, judged it would be quixotic to field his best team in a match they would surely lose. Instead, their energies will be conserved for those they could win.
Playing against the All Blacks should be a career highlight for any player. But is it more important than the possibility of reaching the World Cup quarter-finals for the first time?
The tactic could backfire. Points difference is one of the tournament tie-breakers and a 100-point savaging by New Zealand could be a huge handicap, particularly if the chase for second takes on a "scissors, paper, stone" quality."
It's a pity the spacing of games and depth of resources isn't enough for everyone to play their full teams for every game. But that's the nature of rugby, and even with a 2 month tournament not every team would necessarily risk key players for every match. Still, the "Iron Man RWC" should be a setting on future rugby computer games...
Positively Delphic...
Long range predictions are the most fun:
"Wallabies coach Eddie Jones has urged World Cup referees to crack down on infringements at the tackle to ensure a fast, open, attacking spectacle.
...
"If we get quick ball at the World Cup and the tackled players are refereed very heavily, then I think there will be a good balance in the games.
"If we get a proper officiating of the tackled player, then we'll get that balance between contest and continuity.
"If we don't, then that will favour the contests, if it favours contests then it will favour the defending sides ... so let's hope that it continues as it has this year in international rugby."
Jones was criticised by England coach Clive Woodward ahead of their Melbourne Test earlier this year for what he felt was trying to influence referees.
Woodward said at the time: "We wait until October, for the next media campaign orchestrated by (Jones)."
Of course, Woodward's said things through the press before as well. And Jones has a good point - I'd say everyone wants a flowing game, provided there's a fair contest for the ball. If a defending side is allowed a chance to win some ball, but can't kill it off, the game will have the right balance.
However, given Australia face Argentina, who have (arguably) much better forwards in the tight phases than Australia, but are much weaker in the backs, it seems a little much like gamemanship. Particularly as Ireland are in a similar, but less extreme, position relative to Jones's team, so if the refs play it how he wants, he's at a huge advantage....
"Wallabies coach Eddie Jones has urged World Cup referees to crack down on infringements at the tackle to ensure a fast, open, attacking spectacle.
...
"If we get quick ball at the World Cup and the tackled players are refereed very heavily, then I think there will be a good balance in the games.
"If we get a proper officiating of the tackled player, then we'll get that balance between contest and continuity.
"If we don't, then that will favour the contests, if it favours contests then it will favour the defending sides ... so let's hope that it continues as it has this year in international rugby."
Jones was criticised by England coach Clive Woodward ahead of their Melbourne Test earlier this year for what he felt was trying to influence referees.
Woodward said at the time: "We wait until October, for the next media campaign orchestrated by (Jones)."
Of course, Woodward's said things through the press before as well. And Jones has a good point - I'd say everyone wants a flowing game, provided there's a fair contest for the ball. If a defending side is allowed a chance to win some ball, but can't kill it off, the game will have the right balance.
However, given Australia face Argentina, who have (arguably) much better forwards in the tight phases than Australia, but are much weaker in the backs, it seems a little much like gamemanship. Particularly as Ireland are in a similar, but less extreme, position relative to Jones's team, so if the refs play it how he wants, he's at a huge advantage....
Now that's a compliment....
Michael Jones, "The Iceman", and a popular pick for the all time XV to play Mars, rates England's pack pretty highly. He still picks NZ to win the RWC, but he's got nice things to say:
"New Zealand great Michael Jones says England's forward pack is the equal of the All Blacks' magnificent eight from the peerless 1996 vintage.
The same eight players, including flanker Jones, were together for New Zealand's 10 Tests that year as they breezed through the Tri Nations and also beat South Africa away in a series for the first time.
In the early days of professionalism, New Zealand advanced the game considerably with their incredible attacking style stemming from a forward platform.
With Sean Fitzpatrick, the Brooke brothers Zinzan and Robin, and Jones leading the way, the All Blacks pack was untouchable.
So it's meant as a huge compliment from Jones when he says the England pack is an "unbelievably physical, technically correct, outfit which reminds him of that New Zealand crew."
"They're definitely one of the most technically proficient forward packs ever," Jones told The Associated Press.
"It reminds me of our forward pack in 1996 when we had had almost a sixth sense about each other - we had total confidence in each other. And you can see that in England - they've played together so much and have had so much success so they're extremely confident.""
Of course, it could all go horribly wrong. We'll see.
"New Zealand great Michael Jones says England's forward pack is the equal of the All Blacks' magnificent eight from the peerless 1996 vintage.
The same eight players, including flanker Jones, were together for New Zealand's 10 Tests that year as they breezed through the Tri Nations and also beat South Africa away in a series for the first time.
In the early days of professionalism, New Zealand advanced the game considerably with their incredible attacking style stemming from a forward platform.
With Sean Fitzpatrick, the Brooke brothers Zinzan and Robin, and Jones leading the way, the All Blacks pack was untouchable.
So it's meant as a huge compliment from Jones when he says the England pack is an "unbelievably physical, technically correct, outfit which reminds him of that New Zealand crew."
"They're definitely one of the most technically proficient forward packs ever," Jones told The Associated Press.
"It reminds me of our forward pack in 1996 when we had had almost a sixth sense about each other - we had total confidence in each other. And you can see that in England - they've played together so much and have had so much success so they're extremely confident.""
Of course, it could all go horribly wrong. We'll see.
Nice little interview in a press release on the England team
"For immediate release: 7 October 2003
Issued on behalf of Zurich
Clive Woodward
7th October 2003
AT: That is the strongest England side, is it wise to put out the top team?
CW: In the back of my mind we have always been planning it this way ever since we saw the draw, the majority of those players have only played one game in four months, so it has gone according to plan. I am just delighted that we can pick our strongest team and that we have no injury worries at all so I can pick from 30 players. Some of the players, Dallaglio and Vickery haven't even played one game in four months because they missed the game against France, so it was important for the whole tournament that we started strong with arguably England's strongest team at the moment, but a lot can happen and we will certainly use the replacements at the weekend. Looking forward to see Kryan Bracken and Iain Balshaw and they are pushing hard to get in the starting fifteen. But fundamentally it's the same team that finished against Australia in the summer with the exception of switching Dawson and Bracken.
AT: It does seem an awful long time since those three warm up games, so the players must be really itching to play?
CW: We spoke about this a long time ago, you can talk about leaving players out, injuries, but at the end of the day it's a World Cup and we are over here to play in it. That's what we have always planned, we have trained very, very hard, we have taken a lot of time to ensure that we have not had injuries during training and they are now ready for a hit out. And it's going to be a tough game against Georgia but it's a game that England should win. We saw them play against Italy and they should have beaten them, and Italy are in the Six Nations. So it's a great match for England a week before we play South Africa and I can promise you if we left any player out for any other reason outside merit it would have caused too much internal problems and we just have to get on with it and if you say that we are starting with our strongest team, and that is what we have done.
AT: You put Jason Robinson in at Fullback the last time we were over here and Josh Lewsey on the wing, might you swap them round again this time?
CW: I don't think that we did, Robinson was playing with Number 11 and Lewsey played at 15, we just switched them round during the game for certain tactical reasons but here again it is a discussion that always makes me smile they both, along with Ben Cohen, if you watch the game very closely they will sometimes start at fullback or sometimes start at wing depending on what we are doing, and depending on who we are playing against. We are very lucky that we have got three players there in Lewsey, Robinson and Cohen that can play wing or fullback. Same with Balshaw, who will definitely run out this weekend, he is very strong, he had a great game against France in early September, and we have a very strong bench as well here.
AT: Will everybody get a game here or might there be players who will go through the whole World Cup without a game?
CW: I never want to put myself in a corner over selection, but we have a very strong squad now and I would like to think that we would be prepared to use every member of the 30 party, it is a strong team and we have proven that in terms of the games against France in Marseille and the Maoris that our so called second team can front up to anybody. You know I would be disappointed if everybody in the 30 didn't get a start in one of these pool games.
The England team to play Georgia:
Josh Lewsey
Jason Robinson
Mike Tindall
Will Greenwood
Ben Cohen
Jonny Wilkinson
Matt Dawson
Phil Vickery
Steve Thompson
Trevor Woodman
Martin Johnson
Ben Kay
Richard Hill
Lawrence Dallaglio
Neil Back
Replacements:
Jason Leonard
Mark Regan
Danny Grewcock
Lewis Moody
Kryan Bracken
Paul Grayson
Iain Balshaw"
"For immediate release: 7 October 2003
Issued on behalf of Zurich
Clive Woodward
7th October 2003
AT: That is the strongest England side, is it wise to put out the top team?
CW: In the back of my mind we have always been planning it this way ever since we saw the draw, the majority of those players have only played one game in four months, so it has gone according to plan. I am just delighted that we can pick our strongest team and that we have no injury worries at all so I can pick from 30 players. Some of the players, Dallaglio and Vickery haven't even played one game in four months because they missed the game against France, so it was important for the whole tournament that we started strong with arguably England's strongest team at the moment, but a lot can happen and we will certainly use the replacements at the weekend. Looking forward to see Kryan Bracken and Iain Balshaw and they are pushing hard to get in the starting fifteen. But fundamentally it's the same team that finished against Australia in the summer with the exception of switching Dawson and Bracken.
AT: It does seem an awful long time since those three warm up games, so the players must be really itching to play?
CW: We spoke about this a long time ago, you can talk about leaving players out, injuries, but at the end of the day it's a World Cup and we are over here to play in it. That's what we have always planned, we have trained very, very hard, we have taken a lot of time to ensure that we have not had injuries during training and they are now ready for a hit out. And it's going to be a tough game against Georgia but it's a game that England should win. We saw them play against Italy and they should have beaten them, and Italy are in the Six Nations. So it's a great match for England a week before we play South Africa and I can promise you if we left any player out for any other reason outside merit it would have caused too much internal problems and we just have to get on with it and if you say that we are starting with our strongest team, and that is what we have done.
AT: You put Jason Robinson in at Fullback the last time we were over here and Josh Lewsey on the wing, might you swap them round again this time?
CW: I don't think that we did, Robinson was playing with Number 11 and Lewsey played at 15, we just switched them round during the game for certain tactical reasons but here again it is a discussion that always makes me smile they both, along with Ben Cohen, if you watch the game very closely they will sometimes start at fullback or sometimes start at wing depending on what we are doing, and depending on who we are playing against. We are very lucky that we have got three players there in Lewsey, Robinson and Cohen that can play wing or fullback. Same with Balshaw, who will definitely run out this weekend, he is very strong, he had a great game against France in early September, and we have a very strong bench as well here.
AT: Will everybody get a game here or might there be players who will go through the whole World Cup without a game?
CW: I never want to put myself in a corner over selection, but we have a very strong squad now and I would like to think that we would be prepared to use every member of the 30 party, it is a strong team and we have proven that in terms of the games against France in Marseille and the Maoris that our so called second team can front up to anybody. You know I would be disappointed if everybody in the 30 didn't get a start in one of these pool games.
The England team to play Georgia:
Josh Lewsey
Jason Robinson
Mike Tindall
Will Greenwood
Ben Cohen
Jonny Wilkinson
Matt Dawson
Phil Vickery
Steve Thompson
Trevor Woodman
Martin Johnson
Ben Kay
Richard Hill
Lawrence Dallaglio
Neil Back
Replacements:
Jason Leonard
Mark Regan
Danny Grewcock
Lewis Moody
Kryan Bracken
Paul Grayson
Iain Balshaw"
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Where can I watch the game in....
Gwl@d Rugby, a welsh site, has a great forum for finding out the answer to "where can I watch the game in New York?" (or Boston, or Texas, or Los Angeles, or Kuala Lumpur, or Lima). A lot of bases are already covered, and if you really need to know where you can watch the rugby in an obscure city or a non-rugby nation, that's the place to go....
Ones to watch (part 94...)
The Guardian has a nice little profile of five players they reckon are a bit special. Thomas Castagneide, a wonderfully talented, if erratic, French fly-half/centre/full-back, and Nigel Melville, a successful English scrum-half and coach, give their opinions on Joe Rokocoko, Brian O'Driscoll, Fabien Galthie, Mat Rogers and Jason Robinson. All of whom are rather useful players....
