American minnows rock the boat of world champions England, earning them the love of all of Wales.
In 1950, the United States of America's soccer team was responsible for one of the greatest upsets in the sport's history when they defeated that (rather self-appointed) giant of the game England, and now I'd like to extend the hand of Welsh sporting brotherhood to your rugby team.…
Article comments
26 - Colin
A real old fashioned England grind Doc... Fairplay to em they kept turning the ball over but I hope France and the All Blacks turn on summat a bit more entertaining. Reading the papers this morning it was all a matter of by how many the Aussies would win, what happened to em?
27 - STM
A: They played like shit, and let the England forwards walk all oveer them (literally and figuratively).
Good luck to 'em, but I hope the japies put up some stiff opposition and at least try to run the ball around the park so the fans have some nice memories to take away from the final.
That's the thing with rugby - as a game, it has the capacity to be the most entertaining, exciting, spectacular and fastest game in the world. Sadly, depending on how it is played, it can also be the most boring.
Still, if you're out to win a world cup, pretty probably doesn't (and shouldn't, really) figure in the calculations. South Africa have plenty of flair out wide, but also good firepower up front.
Case in point: Look at Australia, France and New Zealand - probably the three most entertaining and exciting rugby teams in the world and capable of beating most comers on their day.
And they're all going to be watching the final from the stands. I must support the japies, being the only tri-nations, southern hemisphere team left.
But I fear they might be put to the sword by England and J.Wilkinson's superboot.
28 - Colin
Excuse my ignorance, but are the Jappies South Africa? I guess they must be, what's the derivation of that crazy nickname though Stan? Boks is all I've heard before (along with gits, cheats etc :o))...
The Jappies (I think) looked very good against Argentina and Habana is frightening, but in Jason Robinson (amazingly!) England have the best running back in the tournament, despite all their forward power... I quite enjoy forward rugby in a close game - I'm a Gloucester fan (yes, a Welsh one I'm very mongrel), who were for years famed for playing a 10 man game - at Kingsholm centres and wings were for decoration only.
29 - Dr Dreadful
Gloucester? No shame there - it's the Marches, after all. They've always been practically Welsh anyway.
30 - STM
I am a big fan of Jason Robinson, but not of England's style of play generally (no! really?), despite the fact that it's highly effective.
We have an ad on TV here for Duracell batteries, with a little bunny running forever on a pair of Duracell heavy duties.
Jason reminds me of the Duracell bunny, with those little legs pumping away. He is a dangerman, tough, and has a heart twice the size of his body (and for a man so talented, AND a pom, has a surprising lack of ego).
The game is worse off with his retirement.
BTW, even though my money was on the Japies (Colin: as in Japie Mulder, Japie du Preez, etc), the Poms played pretty well and in the end, the result just came down to the bounce of the ball and the ref's arm. There was nothing in it, and England can probably count themselves unlucky more than anything that the penalty count didn't go their way, especially with South Africa just as notorious for illegal pilfering and slowing down the ball at the breakdown.
You will hear much about Cueto's disallowed try in coming days (weeks, months, years), but Stu Dickinson absolutely had to rule against it. Cueto's foot was definitely in touch, just by a coat of paint I know, but in a world cup final, it has to be spot-on and laws are laws. A coat of paint is out, not in, despite how unfair that might seem. When Cueto grounded, the ball was in touch.
Either way, it would have been a highly controversial decision and Dickinson was stuck between a rock and a hard place. In the end, he chose hard place.
31 - Christopher Rose
Stan, you wanker! You must be thrilled to bits that a bloody Aussie robbed England of a clearly legitimate try. Dickinson couldn't stand the prospect of England retaining their title any more than you could. The rear view camera clearly showed the ball touching down. Cueto's foot was as much in touch as your objectivity.Talk about an Austral conspiracy. We was robbed!
32 - STM
Lol. That's just sour grapes Rosie, and enough of the wanker thanks very much. One thing I do know about is me rugby ... Paddy O'Brien and your very own world-cup-winning Captain Johnno agreed with the decision ... check out Johnno in London's Telegraph. He saw the pix, you obviously haven't.
The stills pictures clearly show Cueto's foot in touch, then back in the field of play BEFORE he touched down. O'Brien describes it as a brilliant decision, and despite the one-up patrician point of view of most Englishmen, since it probably cost England the game I'm inclined to agree.
Seriously though, according to the laws of rugby, the ball was in touch when Cueto went over the line. Not buts or ifs about it, and you can moan like the rest of your mob for the next 40 years. It WASN'T a try, and it never will be. Check the scoreboard if you have any doubts.
And as for an Aussie making the decision, I don't consider Dicko to be a real Australian simply by dint of his occupation.
Anyone who decides to be come a referee immediately becomes a Jobsworth by osmosis and therefore a walk-up start to apply for a position
as a moaning, whining Englishman. In this case, though, he is to be congratulated.
You lost fair and square. Get over it old boy :)
Bloody pommies. Can't cop a good thrashing, ever. The real reason England lost is that when they get behind, they are clueless in terms of how to add points - except by potting a few penalties or drop goals.
And really, you'd think you'd be experts at losing by now (let's lay out the histories here if you want to argue).
PS, in complete contrast to your gloating and moaning, I never heard a word of complaint here about England beating Australia.
You never do (contrary to the mistaken beliefs you seem to hold over there). Still, none of us here has forgotten that England fans almost to a person supported the French in the '99 final against Australia.
The bloody French, of all people. Mon dieu ... how could you?
Is blood not thicker than onion soup? Apparently not.
The good thing about being Australian is that we know it's just a game, and there's always next time ;)
33 - Christopher Rose
You're the one with the sour grapes, Stan, you've been whining on and on all over the site about how much you couldn't stand it if England won!
I don't care what other people say, I saw the match and the endless replays of all the camera angles showed that was a perfectly legal try.
Your endorsement of this blatant robbery is as bitter and twisted as your harping on about '99 - but you're not one to hold a grudge, oh no. Time to get over your post-colonial resentment!
No wonder you try to characterise the straightforward presentation of my view as moaning and complaining, it would spare you the embarrassment of admitting we were the better team against SA, just as we were against your sad lot.
As for the term wanker, that's a perfectly normal way of addressing a bloke, as you full well know. I take your prickly objection as further evidence of the fact that in your heart of hearts you KNOW we were robbed but just can't bring yourself to admit it.
34 - Silver Surfer
Lol. We wuz robbed, now, is it Rosie old boy?
The scoreboard says Japies 15, Poms 6.
One of them went home with the Webb Ellis Cup, the other didn't.
As you know Rosie, we only love to hate you; we don't actually hate you (much).
But you ARE "the auld enemy", as we are yours ... and your pain on the sporting field is our pleasure, and vice-versa.
And you know the truth of this, and thus will it ever be.
Tee hee. "Robbed, I tell ye ... we wuz robbed, and 40 million poms say so."
Just another reason to hate us, eh Chris? We love it ... :)
35 - Silver Surfer
Actually Rosie, I have been trying to tempt you out of the woodwork ... doesn't take much :) I think you blokes probably were robbed as it was a call that could have gone either way, but I don't believe Dicko, a professional referee, would have taken sides. He is one of the IRB's top refs, and he saw what he saw, and that's that.
And when he was making the decision, I thought: "If he rules in touch, the bloody Poms will blame us". I was right. Every bastard in the office has been going on about it. I thought a bloke was going to hit me this morning. In the end though, truth is South Africa just played the better footy.
I am a fan of English rugby, BTW, as in reality I really like watching good forwards grind it out.
Aside from all this, and the disappointment of the final, did you at least not enjoy the feast of football?
It was nice to have all those teams in the one place, and I thought Argentina were the revelation. They are now in third place on the IRB rankings, which means they have to be taken seriously. We'll hear more no doubt in the comming months.
Until the next one, there's another four years to enjoy. I just hope Zedd doesn't keep signing off with "we are the champions" until then.
36 - Christopher Rose
I'll grant that South Africa looked the stronger team both on the day and throughout the tournament - and were easily the best of the Southern Hemisphere teams.
However, the best team doesn't always win and I reckon the tide would have gone our way if that try had stood. Still, it's all done and dusted now and there's nothing for it but to start working towards 2011.
37 - Dr Dreadful
It was nice to have all those teams in the one place
Except when they were in Cardiff, Edinburgh...
38 - Dr Dreadful
I thought Argentina were the revelation. They are now in third place on the IRB rankings, which means they have to be taken seriously. We'll hear more no doubt in the comming [sic] months.
What do you think should happen, Stan? It would seem to make more sense for Argentina to join the Tri-Nations because of the geography. They might have a hard time competing to begin with (remember that until the semi-final they didn't play any of the big Southern Hemisphere nations), but based on their showing in France it wouldn't take them long to adapt.
Italy were pretty much just sacrificial lambs when they first joined the Six Nations, but are now starting to grind out a few results. I believe France had the same experience when they were admitted to the (then) Five Nations - now more often than not they're the best team in it.
39 - STM
The big problem for Argentina joining the tri-natuions, which really would be a good thing for world rugby, is that most of their players are professionals playing in Britain, Ireland, France and Italy.
Which would mean a hell of a lot of disruption to their lives and to the clubs that employ them if they were to come together for two months and play in the southern hemisphere. There is some suggestion that they should be supported in this endeavour by having one or two teams from Argentina join the Super 14 competition instead, which would allow those players to return home on good pay and play in the southern hemsisphere.
That's one way around it, but think of the travel: on a normal Super 14 tour it could be Johannesburg, Durban, Capetown, Perth, Sydney, Brisbane, Auckland, Dunedin. Imagine throwing Buenos Aires into that mix, and you are talking about teams literally near-traversing the globe. I believe there are now no direct flights to BA from here, and travel is via Santiago. Loistically, it becomes a nightmare.
I reckon they should join the six nations competition and make it seven.
However, the likely outcome, knowing the IRB's track record, is that it will go into the too-hard basket and nothing will happen and the Argentines and Pacific Islanders (who should also have a combinde Super rugby franchise) will once again be left out in the cold.
And Rosey, I know your red-and-white skewed view has England as the best team at the World Cup, I don't agree. South Africa, despite having the much easier draw after beating England in the first pool game, were by far the stand-out team of the competition.
England were good, but not quite good enough. The difference was in the backs, and although the Bok backs didn't look like they did much in the final, they actually did plenty.
40 - Christopher Rose
Stan, your attitude to we Brits is as pre-programmed as Nalle's to anybody who disagrees with his profound political and social insights!
Just refer yourself as far back as #36, where I wrote "I'll grant that South Africa looked the stronger team both on the day and throughout the tournament - and were easily the best of the Southern Hemisphere teams."
Assuming the TV monitor bloke is as biased as you are, it is no surprise he couldn't bring himself to allow a perfectly good try.
C'mon, admit it, you're still stunned that Australia were beaten so easily! LOL
41 - STM
Wrong, Rosie. Most of it's just a gee-up.
However, some of it's a reaction to the pompous and arrogant attitudes the rest of us have to put up with from too many of your countrymen.
And headlines like this in The Daily Mail (well, what else would you expect from them): "England robbed by Aussie video ref".
I mean, come on. What a joke.
The truth is, as I've said before, we don't really care that much. Unlike the kiwis, when it comes to sport, we have the attitude that's it just a game - especially with rugby, which has a very small playuer base to draw from here.
And had Stirling Mortlock not missed his penalty against England in that quarter, the scoresheet would have read differently.
Which is highly telling for a team that got driven off the ball at the breakdown and destroyed (yes, Australia were destroyed by England) at the set piece.
What does it tell, you might ask?
It tells that the Australian backs were still able to score the only try of a game in which they were narrowly beaten, and that when it comes to adding points, England are and will always be clueless except when it comes to booting a few penalties and a drop goal here and there. Another other team that had the foot on the throat like that would have won by a thrashing, not by two pissy points off Wilko's magic boot. I mean, they scored the least number of points and tries of any side at the RWC. How is that entertainment? Truth is, they could just as easily have lost to Australia if Mortlock had been on target. That just says everything about this England team (although not the previous one, headed by Johnno the galloping moose, which was a ball tearer)
Apart from that, old boy, your gloating won't work on me. I've copped it for the past four years, although there is silence here today thankfully. And you're still behind on the tally of how many world cups won :) It's still two against one, in case you hadn't looked it up.
And for the record, in 2003, I was glad that England won the final. Australia didn't deserve to, even though it was a mighty close thing - because I thought it was nice for a NH team to take the trophy home - yes, even The Poms.