Paris 2007: The final conflict
Posted by Christopher Sheil on Saturday, October 20, 2007
 |
Sadly, the most unpredictable of World Cup tournaments has come down to a damp final between the world’s two most widely disliked teams. Apart from all its cultural baggage, England is disliked because it specialises in the grimmest of rugby spectacles, the 10-man game of territory and goal kicks. South Africa is disliked for its rough-house approach to the game, for a take-no-prisoners attitude to the rules and the violent boundaries of the contest.
Still, as the discussion has turned toward all week, the Springboks are an all-round rugby team, embodying attacking prowess, along with forward strength and a kicking game. Thus, the Springboks enter the 2007 final finding themselves in the unaccustomed position of being the crowd favourites among fans worldwide.
The implicit challenge for both teams is to provide an exhibition of rugby that proves them worthy of the title of world champion. Oh yes, the winner will have legal rights, but will this convince anyone? Will anyone really accept that a grim, percentage England victory will entitle the Poms to anything but technical bragging rights? Can anyone seriously believe that England has a better rugby team than the All Blacks?
England has a better chance of winning the game than it does of convincing people that it warrants the crown that comes with the territory. On what we’ve seen so far, only South Africa can save the credibility of the World Cup. On form, the Springboks should win. For the good of the game, they must win.
Update: With a 15-6 victory, South Africa has lifted the William Webb Ellis Trophy to claim the 2007 Rugby World Cup. Congratulations to the Springboks. Bugger you Crazy Eddie. Thanks referees, linesmen and ballboys. Bring on the Tri-Nations!
This entry was posted on Saturday, October 20th, 2007 at 4:12 PM and filed under Sport - rugby.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Post a comment or leave a trackback.
Reading this a thought came to mind, which on arriving at the final sentence here embracing the same need, contradicted it.
I don’t know. But I wonder that if England win, and the game goes into the dark ages – which I’m sure this last sentence alludes to, as the publicity erupts – due to the poorest of spectacles (and spirit of the game, ironically born in that place) winning.. I wonder if a positive need for rule changes to ensure the running rugby genre and with that, scoring by tries, would necessarily happen.
On the other hand, and herein the positive lives and would entirely agree with that sentence, there is proof enough already that for England to be there through ten man rugby, with all that exquisitely fit and scintillating mobile players of today promise, to change the rules forthwith.
On the Boks, if only they took back an inch in their attack upon the rules, and if only they discarded the eye gouge and that bag of unproductive rubbish, they’d feel the love. Can we speak of ‘the world’? Why not – I believe the world respects their will to win, it is a great rugby tradition of course, and with that, I imagine, the world wants them to feel the return for their efforts.. if only..
Off the sideline, the old adage that possession is everything in rugby has been seriously challenged this World Cup. The Final will be interesting also in that regard.
But it ain’t right.
Posted on 20-Oct-07 at 5:10 pm | PermalinkIf any good comes out of this world cup, it will be that the less wealthy rugby nations have shown that they deserve a shot, and that Australia and NZ have shown that there is no substitute for wanting to win.
I will be watching, but I think I am hoping for a draw. I expect that Habana will be (again) the difference between the two teams, but short of the ground opening up and swallowing them both, my heart is in a draw. 0-0, if possible. Oh what injustice!!
Posted on 20-Oct-07 at 8:28 pm | PermalinkHmmm… I don’t know the answer really. I thought Port had a pretty good style of attacking footy but nevertheless, most afficianados of the game were out kicking the footy in the backyard by half time.
Posted on 21-Oct-07 at 2:19 am | PermalinkGiven the result, I think that both Chris & Robert’s concerns have been attended to. Good grief, what an astonishingly abysmal game to watch. If ever you needed proof that rule changes are required, I think it’s fair to say we just saw it. And that the dull style of play was taken up by both teams just drives the nail in further.
But yes, the natural order has been restored with England losing. I may not love seeing South Africa lift the cup but it’s a darn sight better than the English doing it again. ;-)
Posted on 21-Oct-07 at 8:07 am | PermalinkHate to say but I told you so,noe they are wanting to change the Stellenbosh rules,a slight shifting to the old 5 mt rule that RL discarded years ago.
Posted on 21-Oct-07 at 12:28 pm | PermalinkStill cant score trys, kick and clap, be interested to see how much closer to RL rugby union gets if it is going to stop half the crowd falling asleep
Yes, it did feel a lot like League, so I slept through the second half.
Thank goodness the Boks won, but I’ll have to wait for the replay to find out what happened.
Posted on 21-Oct-07 at 2:10 pm | PermalinkJohn Ryan, we old [can claim that, as you may have, from starting in the Under 7's] rugby folk have gone the journey with rule changes, and we’re ugly enough to know rugby needs a lift. Your code has too – unlimited tackle rule comes to mind, to, I guess, in part halt the stampede of Messrs Gasnier et al, who ran happily amok; by the way, those old tapes of the way your game was played in those days are quite thrilling – running football, aplenty. I’m not into where your game went, though the split second skills of the offload you have are magical. I don’t think too many ‘old’ rugby folk are into where our game has gone, either. At the end of the day, though, that’s not our point. We’re here for the long haul, and we’ll see the game through.
If the compounded force – worldwide – exerted on admin is not heard, I’ll eat my pigskin hat.
To pick the future of Rugby Union is very much like picking the future of western humanity – will it overcome speed bumps in the embrace of money-for-now, throw off the short term need for the illusion it is, that what has driven it forward all these decades shines through? Or will the impact of immediate ‘need’ (illusion, we hold) steer the game away off into something unrecognisable?
That, my friend, is Rugby. It is more than its foibles and failings of today. It holds history in its heart, ever seeking expression in its mind that it might physically moreso, wrapped up by global communal need that the local derby goes off like a bang. And with that, shoves a light into the sky for a generation to be guided.
It’s more than the Wallabies. More than All Blacks. …
Right now, it’s Fiji and Argentina. How good is that!
I’m always touched when League followers choose to comment on Rugby. League has taught Rugby a great deal over the years – be sure, John, that rugby listened and learned. In return, I’m sure you’ll enjoy that in our passion we have a job to do, even if it extends so much as to type words into a keyboard.
But as observa remarks, every now and then you might find us throwing a footy around in the backyard; quick hands perhaps?
Posted on 21-Oct-07 at 7:26 pm | PermalinkWhat a dreadful game that was. The need to stop teams just kicking the leather off the ball is now urgent. Some suggestions:
Posted on 21-Oct-07 at 10:53 pm | Permalink- 2 points only for a goal.
- almost automatic sin binning for infringements in your own red zone (SA were robbed of a try by a deliberate professional foul in this match).
- either a ‘downtown’ rule (as in RL) or (better) permit obstruction within 5m of someone attempting to catch the ball. That should reduce the appalling number of garryowens, taking it back to being the shock tactic it should be.
At the end of the day, though, thats not our point. Were here for the long haul, and well see the game through.
Hear! Hear!
What folks like John Ryan apparently cannot comprehend is that, for rugby fans, there is no competition with league. Folks like Ryan have an approach to their game that is akin to the way Christians and Muslims approach religion, i.e. they’re always seeking converts. Indeed, they seem to actually measure the validity of their own interest in league by the ratio of converts over other games, all of which are seen as deadly threats. We could go so far as to say that they positively need converts to sustain their own belief in league, which might otherwise perish. Rugby fans, by contrast, approach their game as, say, Buddhists approach religion. We support the game on a stand alone basis and have no interest in converts. If you don’t get it, fine, you can go around again, and maybe you’ll pick it up next time. If leagueys are not interested in rugby, good. Who cares? If leagueys are interested, good. Who cares? We follow the game because it is the game that we follow.
Posted on 21-Oct-07 at 11:45 pm | PermalinkMany thanks for your rugby coverage, Chris, it’s been very enjoyable from across the pond :)
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 2:45 am | PermalinkI have to say, seeing English fans whinging about that disallowed try has been funny. Especially after the English press and fans were giving the Kiwi fans a hiding over their complaints about Wayne Barnes.
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 6:31 am | PermalinkAs a Welsh person who is fanatical about rugby, I am glad England lost the final as we over the border would not have been able to stomach another four years of gloating! The English are insufferable when they win anything – they still talk about the 1966 Football World Cup like it was yesterday!
I cheered for Argentina throughout the tournament because they embodied, for me, the true spirit of the game and tried to play open, running rugby without ignoring the necessary contribution of a strong pack. If they can do it, why can’t others?
New Zealand and Australia were disappointing and South Africa were not much better – apart from their defensive system which was awesome. Why did Habana not receive the ball in the final? Because it was the final and they were playing percentage rugby. Sensible option, if a pretty boring one.
You can mess with the Laws of the game as much as you like (for example, making it 2 points for a penalty will only encourage more professional fouls in the 22)but it’s down to the coaches and the players to buy into ‘open’ rugby. The problem is, the cost (of losing) is often too high – just look at Graham Henry and our own Gareth Jenkins.
Posted on 22-Oct-07 at 10:33 pm | PermalinkNa, pat, 2 points for a penalty will work fine if you combine it with the next change I suggested (being very quick to sin-bin).
As for the poms being insufferable when winning, indeed they are – but then we’re all like that. I think you’ve just forgotten that because it’s so long since Wales won anything :-)
Posted on 23-Oct-07 at 11:49 am | PermalinkThey said the game would open up when they made tries 4 then 5 points but it didn’t work, did it? Players just gave away more penalties.
I agree with sin binning though. If refs were tougher earlier in the game, then players would be more careful but there has to be consistency and that is difficult to achieve, it would appear. Southern and Northern hemisphere refs seem to penalise different areas of the game and confusion reigns!
As for Wales not winning much for years, that was a cheap shot, derrida (despite your smiley face) We won the Grand Slam 2 years ago although I don’t suppose that means much Down Under. I may be Welsh but I can appreciate good rugby whoever is playing it. My point was that England didn’t play good rugby so, if they’d won the World Cup, their celebrations would have seemed hollow for a lot of people who love the game and feel England’s version is rather uninspiring.
Posted on 23-Oct-07 at 10:43 pm | PermalinkWales is one of the great rugby nations, no question, and the game against Fiji was unquestionably the highlight of the Cup for mine (with the Springboks versus Fiji not too far behind).
I also agree with Pat re the points. I think Australia is over-conditioned to imagine that trite changes in prices is all that needs to be done to change human behaviour. It’s a kind of neanderthal substitute for thinking that’s gripped Australia’s grey matter over recent decades. I’m regularly assailed by the anti-field goal brigade, for instance, but really, the penalty for missing a field goal is high – ask Chris Latham. I’d be happier with stricter sin-binning in the red zone, although, as Pat says, it finally gets back to the coaches.
Still, I’m looking forward to the rules trial in the Super 14 and Tri-Nations next year. Some look excellent (such as the no pass-back to the quarter line), others not so (such as pulling down mauls), and it will be good to see them get a work-out at the top level.
Posted on 24-Oct-07 at 12:12 am | PermalinkThe new laws have already been tried out in the 2nd division in Scotland to mixed reviews but I don’t think that is necessarily relevant as they will surely be fine-tuned and adapted by the professional teams over the coming months.
Posted on 01-Nov-07 at 1:37 am | PermalinkI am all for speeding up the game but I also think it is down to the refs to use the yellow card earlier in a game. This normally has the desired effect. Players know he means business and start concentrating on moving the ball around – positive instead of negative rugby.
But rugby is such a strange game that I think too much messing around with the laws is not always a good thing. Look at the changes in the scrum – crouch, touch, pause, engage. Has that improved the game? It’s debatable. Lots of scrums still collapse. And am I the only one who actually enjoys watching the front 8 battle it out?
I am looking forward to the super 14 tournament though (on Sky up here) as it is normally fast, furious and competitive. The Heneken Cup (our closest equivalent) has too many weakish teams in it and only gets exciting in the final stages.
Here’s to a successful 4 years to all those teams in the process of re-building but I do hope none of them become too fixated on the next World Cup and takes each game as it comes. 2011 is a long way off!