Originally Posted by dougal

France left the game behnd them and dare I say if the game wasnt in NZ, webb might be speaking french!

Yep I think France had the plan to win the game they just didn't quite get there, a story New Zealand knows all to well, I have no doubt that one of these days they will lift it.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Meh, I kind of hope the French win this one well basically I will be ok as long as England or Wales don't win it.

I'm only pleased the French didn't win it. Before you ask, its not sour grapes. I wouldn't give a damn if Outer Mongolia won it, as long as the French didn't.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

I'm only pleased the French didn't win it. Before you ask, its not sour grapes. I wouldn't give a damn if Outer Mongolia won it, as long as the French didn't.

Fair enough, my argument is not that you shouldn't support who you like (I am a supporter of running rugby no matter who the team) it is that no matter who you support it should be recognised that the French team played a blinder of a game in that final, love or hate the French team (or France itself for that matter) good play should be recognised even grudgingly.

I support France because in they are the only team that play with a level of flair and passion that matches Southern Hemisphere teams in a region that plays rugby like it plays soccer (more concerned about not losing than winning).

The one statement I think needs to be banned from the rugby lexicon is "it doesn't matter how pretty it is as long as you win", if rugby is to get up and become a major worldwide sport that phrase has to be abolished.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Wow that sounds like sour grapes, way to run down the efforts of both teams man.

No question of sour grapes, England didn't show up - end of, and in no way did my post run down the efforts of France.

It was a simple match report and reflection on the state of play. Fair comment I believe.

Wales were the team to be reckoned with, the unfortunates of this tournament.

You have the Webb-Ellis on the shelf, congratulations. Enjoy.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

No question of sour grapes, England didn't show up - end of, and in no way did my post run down the efforts of France.

It was a simple match report and reflection on the state of play. Fair comment I believe.

Wales were the team to be reckoned with, the unfortunates of this tournament.

You have the Webb-Ellis on the shelf, congratulations. Enjoy.

Well then I have no idea where you got the "desperate kicking game" and "High tackles" idea from as I was impressed that both teams kept the ball in hand most of the second half and not one penalty for a high tackle was awarded in the game.

As for Wales being the team to be "reckoned" with well South Africa reckoned with them in the pools rounds, France "reckoned" with them in the semi's and Australia "reckoned" with them in the 3rd-4th play off, I am not sure how many more "reckoning's" you think Wales deserved.

Wales lost 3 games, Australia only lost two in the same number of games and no one seems to care.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Well then I have no idea where you got the "desperate kicking game" and "High tackles" idea from as I was impressed that both teams kept the ball in hand most of the second half and not one penalty for a high tackle was awarded in the game.

Monty B - as you know, I am a great admirer of yours and of Kiwis, but I am glad you have asked that question; firstly because I did not specify it, not wanting to have to field undeserved accusations of sour grapes; and secondly because it precisely pin-points the reservations I suggested and why NZ won and France lost the final.

So I am happy to clarify. Just before France gave away the penalty which cost them the game NZ committed TWO terrible high tackles almost in tandem to stop the French overwhelming them, which, as you so correctly point out, the referee somehow ignored, and from there on, NZ reverted to the 'desperate kicking game' I described in order to survive and not lose.

Exactly why NZ won and France lost, so narrowly. No criticism of France from me in this game; it had its pocket picked.

This is what winning and losing is all about.

Regarding Wales - well of course you omit to mention the one important fixture that counts in destroying all their endeavours at the semi-final stage. Unfortunates in that they lost only because they played most of the game one man short, and only just fell short.

On the form I have described in both games - could NZ have beaten Wales in the final ??

Winning and losing . Battle and attrition is the last resort of tournament.

Anyway, my third congratulation is here. As i said at the outset, the Kiwis have long since earned their crown.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Monty B - as you know, I am a great admirer of yours and of Kiwis, but I am glad you have asked that question; firstly because I did not specify it, not wanting to have to field undeserved accusations of sour grapes; and secondly because it precisely pin-points the reservations I suggested and why NZ won and France lost the final.

So I am happy to clarify. Just before France gave away the penalty which cost them the game NZ committed TWO terrible high tackles almost in tandem to stop the French overwhelming them, which, as you so correctly point out, the referee somehow ignored, and from there on, NZ reverted to the 'desperate kicking game' I described in order to survive and not lose.

Exactly why NZ won and France lost, so narrowly. No criticism of France from me in this game; it had its pocket picked.

This is what winning and losing is all about.

Regarding Wales - well of course you omit to mention the one important fixture that counts in destroying all their endeavours at the semi-final stage. Unfortunates in that they lost only because they played most of the game one man short, and only just fell short.

On the form I have described in both games - could NZ have beaten Wales in the final ??

Winning and losing . Battle and attrition is the last resort of tournament.

Anyway, my third congratulation is here. As i said at the outset, the Kiwis have long since earned their crown.

Yet you keep delivering more backhanded compliments...

It always amuses me when armchair referees try and convince people they know more than the guys actually refereeing the game, here is the problem with you high tackle argument there are now 3 trained referees out there I could accept that one ref may have missed an offence, on a good day I might accept 2 missing the same offence but 3 profession and trained people missing 2 major and dangerous offences no chance.

As for Warburton and Wales well they deserved to be one player down and before you jump up and down at me or the referee being biased lets look at what Warburton has to say about it...

Warburton says Rolland's red card was right

Wales captain Sam Warburton has said that Rugby World Cup referee Alain Rolland was right to send him off in the Rugby World Cup semifinal loss to France.

Warburton said that he has seen the tackle again and said that it was "uglier" than he first thought.

Warburton was red-carded for a tip tackle on Vincent Clerc in the 18th minute, leaving his teammates short a man for more than an hour in a match they lost by only one point at Eden Park.

The Welsh camp blasted Rolland for days, claiming the dangerous tackle wasn't worthy of a red card and the Irishman acted too hastily.

The decision angered fans around the world as Tonga's Suka Hufanga was only shown a yellow card for the same offence on the same winger Clerc earlier in the match.

But Warburton, serving a three-week ban that ends this weekend, said on Thursday he can't complain about Rolland's decision.

"At the end of the day the IRB said if you lift up a player and drop him it's a red card, and that's exactly what I did," Warburton said.

"I can't complain. There was no point in appealing against it and I didn't have a leg to stand on really."

Immediately after the semifinal, Warburton believed he'd committed "a normal tackle." But on video review he'd changed his mind.

"I have seen it played back, the tackle is a lot uglier than I thought it was at the time," he said.

"When I looked at it on the replays it looked worse than I thought it was.

"I didn't intend to do anything like that and I had only had a yellow card in my career up until that point so it was a shock to get a red, but there was nothing I could do and I just had to support the boys for the rest of that match and the remaining game against Australia."

The International Rugby Board supported Rolland for upholding the law about tip tackles, but Rolland has been overlooked for refereeing any of Wales' matches in the Six Nations next year.[/quote]

http://superxv.com/news/rugby_union_news.asp?id=32722

As for Wales losing by 1 point with only 14 players well I recall New Zealand beating England with only 13 players for much of the second half so I am not sure what you can write into the contributions of one player.

OK - what we have here is a break-down in communication; no sour grapes or 'backhanded' compliments.

The compliments are for past glories - the congratulations are for the final.

It just depends on who is sitting in the armchairs ; a team cannot be expected to match opponents when one man short for most of the game in the World Cup semi-final as Wales did.