´óÏó´«Ã½

bbc.co.uk Navigation

Mark Orlovac

England v France player ratings (243)

Paris - A brand new partnership of me, Orlo, and him, Dirsy, together in one blog.

Here are our player ratings for England's semi-final against France. I have rated England and Dirsy's rated France.

Do you agree? Let us know your thoughts!

ENGLAND:

Jason Robinson – Celebrated his 50th cap with an accomplished performance. Peppered with high balls but dealt with them well. Made a fine jinking run in the second half. 8

Paul Sackey – Did not have many chances to show his speed but helped dump Sebastien Chabal out of bounds as France desperately tried to get back into the game. 6

Mathew Tait – Tackled all night long to shackle the French midfield. Moved to the wing after Josh Lewsey came off injured but still tried to make an impact. 7

Mike Catt – Defensively sound and despite one poor pass to Tait, showed his experience at crucial times. 6

Josh Lewsey – Gave England the perfect start with an opportunist and well-taken try after 82 seconds. Always tried to give England go-forward but came off injured just before half-time. 7

Jonny Wilkinson – What more can you say about him? Not the most accomplished fly-half performance but again he kicked the penalty and drop-goal that sealed victory for England. 7

Andy Gomarsall – Delivered the kick that led to Lewsey’s try but box-kicking lacked direction at times. Defended well to shield a kick through in his own in-goal area. Came off with nine minutes to go. 7

Andrew Sheridan – Did not have the dominance he had against Australia but never took a step back. 7

Mark Regan – Throwing in at the line-out improved as the game went on. Held his own in the scrum before making way for George Chuter with 14 minutes left. 6

Phil Vickery – Had one knock-on but led from the front as always. Was not dominated by Olivier Milloud at scrum-time and made way for Matt Stevens on 56 minutes. 7

Simon Shaw – Typified the England forward effort. Worked his socks off in defence and even managed a nice offload in the tackle. 8

Ben Kay – The 2003 World Cup winner showed all his experience and delivered another hard-working display. Made a superb claim on the floor early in the second half. 7

Martin Corry – When you pick Corry you know what you are going to get. Graft. Always gave his all and put pressure on the French line-out. 7

Lewis Moody – Never stopped working for the England cause. Chased and harried everything that moved. Charged down two clearances and did some great work on the floor before coming off on 54 minutes. 8

Nick Easter – Settled down after some early nerves. Made a good charge-down and delivered a nice pass to keep an attack going in the second half. 7

Replacements:

George Chuter – Replaced Regan with 14 minutes left and was as solid as ever. 6

Matt Stevens – Came on for Vickery with 24 minutes to go and gave two early penalties away but redeemed himself with a juddering hit on Chabal. 6

Lawrence Dallaglio – Received a chorus of boos as he came on with 70 minutes on the clock but had little chance to make an impact. 6

Joe Worsley – Added impetus to England’s defensive effort when coming on with 26 minutes left. Produced a brillaint try-saving tap tackle on Vincent Clerc. 7

Peter Richards – Replaced Gomarsall on 71 minutes and did not have any trouble picking up the pace of the game. 6

Toby Flood – Came on for Catt with 12 minutes remaining. Made a poor decision to go for a drop-goal but did help dump Chabal out of bounds. 6

Dan Hipkiss – Strong and direct after coming on for Lewsey just before the break. Was a real handful for the French midfield. 7

wilkosympathy438.jpg

FRANCE:

Damien Traille – Was at fault for England’s first try and his kicking out of hand was mixed. He did, however, make some effective darts into the France back-line. 6

Vincent Clerc – Like Heymans on the opposite wing, rarely received the ball, although he might have scored but for a Worsley tap-tackle. 6

David Marty – Was well shackled by opposite number Tait, had a kick charged down and missed a tackle that almost led to an England try. 4

Yannick Jauzion – Some good carries and big hits and also showed some nice touches, but got very little change out of England’s midfield. 7

Cedric Heymans – Struggled to get into the game and was too ready to kick when perhaps he had other options. Replaced by Dominici on the hour. 5

Lionel Beauxis – The calmest, and best, player on the pitch before he was replaced. Lots of probing kicks, spot-on with his goal-kicking and a couple of half-breaks, but off target with several attempted drop-goals. Replaced by Michalak after 53 minutes. 7

Jean-Baptiste Elissalde – His pin-point passing gave Beauxis all the time in the world to strut his stuff outside him. Also made a couple of good sniping runs on the fringes. 7

Olivier Milloud – More than held his own in the scrum against England’s vaunted front-row and put himself about in the loose. 7

Raphael Ibanez – Hit his jumpers all night and showed some neat touches in open play before being replaced by Szarzewski after 51 minutes. 7

Pieter de Villiers – Like Milloud, matched his opposite number at scrum-time but rarely showed in the loose. 6

Fabien Pelous Solid in the line-out and some good bullocking runs, but too little field time to really impress. Forced off by injury and replaced by Chabal after 25 minutes. 6

Jerome Thion – Made no mistakes at the line-out and well up for the bruising battle up front, but gained few yards in open play. 6

Serge Betsen – Gave a big performance in what could be his last game for Les Bleus. Everywhere in the loose, some big hits and plenty of mongrel with ball in hand. Replaced by Harinordoquy 14 minutes from time. 8

Thierry Dusautoir – Some classy touches with ball in hand, plenty of evasive running and terrier-like at the breakdown, although he faded towards the end. 7

Julien Bonnaire – Was well up for the bruising forward battle but struggled to impose himself at the breakdown. 6


Replacements:

Dimitri Szarzewski – Hit his jumpers after replacing Ibanez and showed some nice touches in open play. Guilty of the high tackle that led to Wilkinson’s late penalty. 6

Sebastian Chabal – A typically bullish display from the France talisman. Always looking for the ball after replacing Pelous and almost scored. 7

Imanol Harinordoquy – Failed to make much of an impact after replacing Betsen and often second best at the breakdown. 5

Frederic Michalak – France lost much of their momentum after Michalak entered the fray. Some poor decision-making and could not match the cool-headed Beauxis. 5

Christophe Dominici – The live-wire winger rarely found himself in space and had little chance to shine. 6


Mark Orlovac is a ´óÏó´«Ã½ Sport journalist based in London. He will be based in Paris for the knockout stages of the Rugby World Cup.


Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 11:43 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • Jim wrote:

Well done England! Agree with ratings.

England can beat anyone when it comes to a kicking game – even South Africa or Argentina will bottle it next week and fall into our style of play under the pressure of being in the final.

Here’s hoping for another low try count next Saturday. We don’t look like we will score many tries so let’s hope the opposition aren’t looking to score many tries in the final either. Jonny can out kick everybody and we can be the first team to retain the trophy.

  • 2.
  • At 11:43 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • fat tony wrote:

Anyone know a plasterer who can fix my ceiling - the missus isn't happy

What a victory! Who was the MOM?

Great perfomance but I will have to watch the match again to rate them, Although I thought once again the workrate of both locks was immense.

  • 3.
  • At 11:44 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • Andy Pink wrote:

Guys,

It's been emotional. Unbelievable. My heart has only just returned to its normal rate!

I'm honoured to be the first to write on the first blog posting by the partnership - love the campervan stuff, Tom & Ben. You are all going to have a fantastic week!

Great team performance, and agree with the ratings. Thought Hipkiss did well in the circumstances, and Lewsey worked hard. The pack were awesome.

Mark - Have a really good week and give me a ring soon!

Dare we believe?

All the best...Andy

  • 4.
  • At 11:47 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • meg wrote:

Harsh scores I feel, particularly for Sackey and Heymans - I felt they both had good games based on what was in front of them. Still - a deserved result for England who not only put the pressure on, but converted it into points. First ever successful defense of the world cup may be on the cards.

  • 5.
  • At 11:48 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • JB wrote:

yep, agree with those ratings...
thought Hipkiss was a real handful when he came off the bench...earned himself a start maybe against SA/Argentina?? however, can't possibly drop Tait after such a solid performance...mite have to settle for a late substitutes role

  • 6.
  • At 11:49 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • Jim wrote:

Well done England! Agree with ratings.

England can beat anyone when it comes to a kicking game – even South Africa or Argentina will bottle it next week and fall into our style of play under the pressure of being in the final.

Here’s hoping for another low try count next Saturday. We don’t look like we will score many tries so let’s hope the opposition aren’t looking to score many tries in the final either. Jonny can out kick everybody and we can be the first team to retain the trophy.

  • 7.
  • At 11:51 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • Richard wrote:

Come on England, what grit and determination showed, fantastic! Jonny didnt have the best of games, but he proved that he is the best still, he backed himself till the end even though he wasnt kicking that well to start with. Agree with most ratings, but though hipkiss was great when he came on! in the end the decision to bring on michalak at 10 back fired, somtime it has worked to great effect, this time it didnt! and Paul Sackey should have been given at least a 7, thought he had a great game and took all his catches.

P.s. jonny to drop goal for world cup glory again anyone??? would bet agesnt it!

  • 8.
  • At 11:53 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • Pete wrote:

Fully agree with Jason Robinson having a (equal) top rating - didn't put a foot wrong. Man of the match. Great runs and his kicking was outstanding. I think 7 for Gomarsall is generous for the single reason, as you mention, that his kicking was lacking direction. I would say aimless and am at loss to explain how often he hoofed the ball to the opposition without looking where he was kicking, totally negating any chance of play making from Mike Catt. This must have deliberate tactic from Brian? It can't work against South Africa. But, what a result!

  • 9.
  • At 11:53 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • e.jones wrote:

A dream come true!We have our pride back and nothing else matters.Well done lads you have made me proud to be English once more !

  • 10.
  • At 11:54 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • nick wrote:

Worsley's tackle on Clerc surely has to be as important a tackle that has been made in RWC history and what a cracker it was too!! Roll on next week

  • 11.
  • At 11:54 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • Tim rugby wrote:

My team team mates and myself have just watched the game in Spain(most of them are Argentianians)We all agreed that England were the best team on the night!!
Vamos Las Pumas....cos really we all want to see a Eng/Arg final......don,t we!

  • 12.
  • At 12:02 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • longuepasse wrote:

I think your comment about Michalak is very perceptive, and I don't doubt that it's recipient would agree. The Sharks SA fly half will be only the better for getting away from Toulouse, and your comment on him, for all that it is blindingly accurate, should not boost your ego.

  • 13.
  • At 12:02 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • HugoParis wrote:

Congratulations for a fine victory, I wonder what could now bring down England's juggernaut. But this was probably one of the ugliest world cup rugby games ever, and I would have felt the same way, had France won 9-8. Both teams used woeful tactics, and they managed to turn a great sport into the most boring performance. For a neutral,it must have been dreadful to watch. France did not deserve to win, but neither did England. If this is what you need to win a world cup, then it surely means the death of rugby as a global popular sport.

  • 14.
  • At 12:04 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • ecordiale wrote:

Well done lads: These ratings are pretty balanced & a major improvement on the lamentable efforts by Tom & Dirsy after the Eng vs Aus QF.

Re these England ratings, I think that Robinson & Lewsey were the star turns, but reckon Tait, Moody, Shaw & Corry have all been over-rated.

Re the France ratings, I'd mark Traile & Heymans up 1 point each, & Chabal down 1. Agree Betsen & Bauxis were the star performers for Les Bleus.

  • 15.
  • At 12:04 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • matt keen wrote:

Well I never-England do not seem to know how to win pretty but winning ugly does still count.

Im still all over the shop to be honest but proud and amazed that this back of bulldogs do not know how to take a backward step,how to know when they are beaten and most importantly how to loose.

Yes luck has bee ridden and yes maybe France where the better team but who will want to play that bunch of teeth griting indistructables now?

Oh happy days

  • 16.
  • At 12:05 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Jonathan Winterbottom wrote:

the french played like out-of-fridge brie...without the taste of english jock-strap...

  • 17.
  • At 12:10 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • MARK wrote:

Thought Clerc had a better game than you rated. Always broke the gain line - best of the French 11-15. Mistake taking off Beauxis too early & Betsen at all. Seemed to just make subs for the sake of it rather than tactically.

Difficult to rate England - Everybody put in a 9/10 in defence. Tackling was immense.

Overall, Robinson was clear MOM for me - deserved at least 1 point more than anyone else - did not put a signle foot wrong all night. Sackey was probably best of the rest. All forwards were very very good without one being outstanding. Easter & Shaw were probably the pick though tired a little at the end. Stevens bar two stupid penalties was exceptional when he came on.

With 5 such top drawer front rowers in the squad we shouldn't be afraid to make changes early - even in the first half if need be. The reules allow you to bring the subbed players back on so we should have that as a plan B for next week.

  • 18.
  • At 12:16 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Ian Fielding wrote:

Great perfromance from the whole team but the defence was awesome! Lets not get carreid away with Wilkinson mania - this was won by the forwards and superb tackling.Shaw, Corry. Moody all awesome tonight

  • 19.
  • At 12:17 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Alex wrote:

I have been discussing a lot lately with Englishmen about the rugby world cup performances and most of them complain than the Pumas kicked too much (the French complain about that even more!). I hope all of them shut up after today's display from France and England!

  • 20.
  • At 12:19 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Alex, Tunbridge Wells wrote:

Wilkinson had a poor kicking game, but he tackled like a No 6. Even saw off Pelous with a monster hit.

Can't really say who man of the match was. No stand outs, but solid allround.

What next?

  • 21.
  • At 12:21 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Thought England deserved the win. We were good right the way through the XV and the replacements. Michalak? Not the player he was! For a fly-half who makes a difference in BIG games forget Michalak, forget Carter - Wilkinson's yer man. The guy is class.

  • 22.
  • At 12:22 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Marshmellow Tentacles wrote:

Unfortunately it was another dire advert for world rugby. There is little hope that the upcoming final will turn out any differently. Congrats to England for doing what a team has to do at this stage of the comp but it is a good thing that the world has DVD recorders equipped with fast forward capabilities.

  • 23.
  • At 12:23 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Ray wrote:

Not sure that I would agree with Shaw's comments...he played well but what was he trying to do with his dainty kick - it was him wasn't it
and
Flood was too keen to claim a 25m drop out rather than seeing if the ball would run dead.
England scrapped through again but its good enough for the final.

  • 24.
  • At 12:24 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Stig wrote:

Epic. Absolutely brilliant. Out of shout. Bring on next Saturday. Who cares about the ratings? What more can I say?

  • 25.
  • At 12:24 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Donnyballgame wrote:

Quibble, quibble, quibble.
They won!

OK, Jonny was off (again) with his kicking, but don't forget he was good with ball in hand and terrific in defence. Shaw and Moody were the two best players on the pitch, period.

But WHY do England still kick straight dow the fiels straight to their backs and not into touch? And How many French knock-ons was the referee not going to call? Told you I was quibbling. Really do respect the French on the day, however.

  • 26.
  • At 12:25 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • fat tony wrote:

Anyone ever rate the commentators and Pundits?

Will Greenwood 7 - Quality - knows what players are feeling and has great technical input

Stuart Barnes 2 - Am I alone in thinking the game would be better without him - Does he just sit with a dictionary looking for long words to squeeze into his commentary !

Any comments ?

  • 27.
  • At 12:32 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • ecordiale wrote:

I'd have given Sackey a 7 at least.

  • 28.
  • At 12:36 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

fat tony: agree. Barnes is a prize plonker and can't read a game to save his life. No wonder he was only ever a reserve player for England.

  • 29.
  • At 12:37 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Frankness wrote:

At last proper ratings...

  • 30.
  • At 12:39 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Neil Meadows wrote:

Jonathan Winterbottom wrote:
"the french played like out-of-fridge brie...without the taste of english jock-strap..."

What's all that about?

Two pints of what he's on please....

  • 31.
  • At 12:41 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Heraldo wrote:

If Marty was shackled by Tait I think you have been a little harsh on Tait's rating. This boy (Tait) played at my club (Darlington) as a junior (a fact ommmitted from his biograhpy) but tonight he came of age. Bring on his brother Alex who by the next world cup could be much more of a prospect.

  • 32.
  • At 12:48 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Darren wrote:

Sorry but Beauxis whilst being a great kicker does not seem to be the greatest tactician of all time. Robinson gave one of the best demonstrations of how to handle the high ball but yet Beauxis kept trying it over and over again. Then when he changed direction Sackey showed hes not too bad under the high ball either. However Beauxis should never of been been taken of. Michalak showed all the composure of a 10 yr old, he did not have much of an appetite for the battle at all.

  • 33.
  • At 12:50 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Tom Williams wrote:

I think it's pathetic how people go on about an unattractice style of rugby. It's what's needed to progess in a world cup.
I'd much rather play ugly rugby and win a world cup than play frilly, aesthetic rugby and get knocked out.
Plus, defense was incredible all game, as was robinson under high ball, wilinson came good when it mattered!

  • 34.
  • At 12:53 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Darren wrote:

Sorry but Beauxis whilst being a great kicker does not seem to be the greatest tactician of all time. Robinson gave one of the best demonstrations of how to handle the high ball but yet Beauxis kept trying it over and over again. Then when he changed direction Sackey showed hes not too bad under the high ball either. However Beauxis should never of been been taken of. Michalak showed all the composure of a 10 yr old, he did not have much of an appetite for the battle at all.

  • 35.
  • At 12:53 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Rob wrote:

Agree re. Barnes - his chat stinks, and Harrison isn't much better. Chabal may look slightly prehistoric, but there's no reason to bang on about it! Greenwood is very good.

Easter's 7 - probably deserved, but lost control of the ball at the base of that early 5m scrum, just when we could have done with turning the screw. Did make amends putting himself about later.

Sackey - he never really looks like he's trying, when he's on the front foot. Must be his long stride.

Tait - seems to be growing in confidence at this level - some nice hands and decent darts - hope he continues in that vein.

  • 36.
  • At 12:54 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • paulcedron wrote:

First of all, Congratulations!
Best players for me were Robinson, Shaw, Moody and despite the fact that it was not his best day for kicking, Wilkinson is always who solve the result.
Well done England, as an Argie i wish we could see you in the final

  • 37.
  • At 12:56 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Donnyballgame wrote:

Just noticed people who are still awake are asking who is MOM. It was Catty. I would have made it Moody since he was everywhere. But it is a very close call. I could also see giving it to Robinson, he was on.

The internet and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ website is a great way to relax after hosting 20 or so of your close friends and watching a friendly match of rugby on TV. You guys are great.

  • 38.
  • At 12:56 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Tom Williams wrote:

I think it's pathetic how people go on about an unattractice style of rugby. It's what's needed to progess in a world cup.
I'd much rather play ugly rugby and win a world cup than play frilly, aesthetic rugby and get knocked out.
Plus, defense was incredible all game, as was robinson under high ball, wilinson came good when it mattered!

  • 39.
  • At 01:02 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • KarlGlendo wrote:

Fantastic result for the ros-bifs. Tait put in a very good performance in defence against a very strong French midfield (when they could be arsed to run with the ball).
Can't wait for the game tomorrow eve. SA not on top of their game as per the last two run outs, plus a very strong Argie pack makes for an intersesting second semi.
Game On!

  • 40.
  • At 01:06 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • tim c wrote:

NEED TO WATCH IT AGAIN. Without my england goggles.Rugby is to all men .TEAM performance magic ,flair ok Contest absolutely awesome from both sides.
Never mind the boring comments to follow, a test in the real sense of the word.

  • 41.
  • At 01:11 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Jamie Stevenson wrote:

I agree with comments nos 26 & 28 that Will Greenwood has been the outstanding commentator and that Stuart Barnes has disappointed. Strange that someone so creative and intelligent as a player and with so much experience on Sky Rugby should appear unable to add serious value and insight. Greenwood does at least try to explain the technique or tactics behind moves. Barnes is too intent on evoking the atmosphere (which we don't need since the tension and excitement of a World Cup match are obvious) at the cost of enlightening us on the moves, the front row battles, the ruck & maul manoeuvres, the decisions and so on. Barnes can be a good commentator but he should be told to forget the hyperbole and histrionics and get his focus back on the basics of rugby.

  • 42.
  • At 01:14 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Matt wrote:

Dire advert ! Have you ever played a game of rugby in your life. You play each game as your last, and you play to your opposition. You play to win, not entertain. At the end of the day whose name is on the trophy is what counts. This was two teams that new each other too well.. bring on hipkiss for the final. Massive forward effort again, 100% england, lets hope for rain and cold next weekend!

English and pround, we are in the final and are defending champions.. if you don't like it where are you?

  • 43.
  • At 01:16 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Paul wrote:

Did no one else think Elissalde's service was poor tonight (too many high passes)? Having said that it was not a pretty game but both teams can hold their heads high as well as most of their fans - to anyone disrespecting either set of players: shame on you, watch something else. Tough, uncompromising rugby. True rugby fans will appreciate the efforts af all those players tonight. Proper international sport.

  • 44.
  • At 01:21 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Celtic Cousin wrote:

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!! Nice!!!

  • 45.
  • At 01:25 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • AndyD wrote:

Is it me, or is Stuart Barnes the worst commentator in RWC history ?

He finds new and interesting ways to annoy each match. Just move him aside and put Will Greenwood in his seat ... so we can listen to some excited and clever commentary.

  • 46.
  • At 01:25 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Pomme stuck in NZ wrote:

Did I see right? Did Mike Catt get MOM? He was interviewed on TV3 in NZ getting it. Not sure he did anything wrong but so many others made such efforts. Thought Hipkiss showed some class and Tait reassured our defensive concerns, Robinson, Sackey and Lewsey all had really sturdy performances, Wilkinson you can't complain about and the whole pack worked their socks off. Catt was about the only person I can't make a comment on. Maybe they picked him because he stood out the least.

Barnes may have been bad on ITV but at least you didn't have commentators constantly making references to forward passes and how fortunate England were that this Ref could see them.

I've been trying to work out, does this mean that England have the best WC record? I suppose Australia have one it twice but don't they otherwise go out in the quarter finals? Anyone know?

  • 47.
  • At 01:29 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Heraldo wrote:

Robinson is the consumate professional. Solid under the first high ball, solid under every high ball. I bet there are some sick looking Aussies and NZ supproters tonight who were backing France.

  • 48.
  • At 01:45 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Alan wrote:

Great win England.
I have an observation that may open a long debate. There has been some controversy over the match balls. If I am correct, Jonny discarded the match ball on two seperate occassions which were handed out by ball boys. Have the French Rugby Authorities tried a little ball tampering I wonder????
Food for thought!!!!!!

  • 49.
  • At 01:55 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Heraldo wrote:

To sleep per chance to dream....

The club game for the non-profeesional/semi professional is dying. My club two seasons ago had 4 teams out on a Saturday this season two. Money caused players to leave for another club in the same town.

Do we aspire to be Johhny or Lawrence? No.

Rethink from the top down or this is the last World Cup glory for England. Sorry to be sour, but we can only go so far on Johnny's boots....

  • 50.
  • At 02:13 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Pom in NZ wrote:

Fabulous effort by the boys! Totally agree with Pomme stuck in NZ (post 45). I turned the volume down on TV3 and streamed the commentary from 5Live. It's going to be a fantastic week to be English in NZ. Only wish I was in Aussie so I could really rub it in. Bring it on!

  • 51.
  • At 02:21 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Karl wrote:

I live in Australia and have to listen to whinging Aussie commentators all the time. Before the game there were clearly keen on the French. During the game it was amazingly even though they kept saying England are only kickers - even after the try - but after the game the were really cheesed off about us winning. When one former Aussie prop was asked if England had the best pack in the world he still said we were naff. Do I care? No! Brilliant game - brilliant performances! The French played the best they could and it wasn't good enough. Shaw and Kay were world class. Easter was outstanding - the first game I've seen him deliver a truly world class performance. Great tap tackle Worsley! I wish Reagan put a little less effort in talking and more in playing then he'd be even better. Good game though.

Catt was a bit poor in places though he was really smart in others. Well done Tait - good game. Sackey is still a bit lightweight for me.

We lost a couple too many turnovers and the Boks / Pumas are both good in that area. But if we tighten up there we will win. I hate to say this as I've backed the opposition each big game - maybe I'm being brainwashed by all the Aussie hype of the Anzac teams. Not doing too well so far are they?

Would love to see England Argentina final.

  • 52.
  • At 02:24 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Overjoyed wrote:

Increadible. I think the england ratings are fairly correct, dont know bout the france ones.... Cant belive the complaints about the match: it was fantastic, not pretty, not technically brilliant, but close and gutsy. Roll on the final.

  • 53.
  • At 02:31 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Matt wrote:

OK I drank a bit, but did no-one else think Sackey was bloody brilliant defensively, especially considering that was supposed to be the weak aspect of his game! Deserved more than a 6 for sure. Other than tha, fair assessments I feel, just can't wait for next weekend!

  • 54.
  • At 02:37 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

I'd have given sackey at least a 7 and tait at least an 8 apart from tht ratings are good. I'd probably say that moody was MOM for me had a great game.

  • 55.
  • At 02:43 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

I'd have given sackey at least a 7 and tait at least an 8 apart from tht ratings are good. I'd probably say that moody was MOM for me had a great game.

  • 56.
  • At 02:44 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Polemic wrote:

England won...all the polemics and rhetoric are not going to change that fact...England won.

You can waffle on as long as you like about who did this and who did that but in the end, it was the team that won the day.

I could further comment but I wont. I've played enough rugby to know that if I make a mistake others have covered for me...That's what makes England special, they play for each other.

Viva England.

  • 57.
  • At 02:49 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • UNION JACK wrote:

A scrappy game with enormous battles going on all over the pitch. Tense drama building to the last 5 minutes which then gave us the fantastic outcome we all craved. Swing low sweet chariot.
Paul Sackey's rating was inadequate. He can't be blamed for the team not creating good opportunities for him to run with the ball. He did do what he could well. Jonny is my MOM. He struggled with his kicking for most of the match. But commeth the hour...

  • 58.
  • At 02:53 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Pete Fargher wrote:

Am deliriously happy for the lads. They're now feeding off all the criticism of the last 4 years, and are on a marvellous roll. Those people who complain about lack of tries, flowing movement etc do not know rugby and have not played it.

Nervous, of course, about the final, but, hey, when Jonny really gets his boots on watch out either of the SH sides.

  • 59.
  • At 02:55 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Paolo on tour wrote:

Great win England, excellent stuff. I'm absolutely ecstatic!

Re the player ratings, I have to disagree hugely with Sackey. Agreed, he made a good joint tackle on Chabal, and is extremely quick. However he was turned over at least 3 times today, his body position seems to be all wrong going into contact, ending up on his back every time. I can't believe he is that much weaker than the opposition players that he is unable to recycle more effectively. For that reason I would be tempted to drop him for the final, shifting Tait out wide agin and bringing Hipkiss into the centres. However, barring Lewsey's injury preventing him playing, I think Ashton should definitely stick with the winning starting lineup. Hipkiss played very well, and should be give game time coming off the bench.

  • 60.
  • At 02:56 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Pete Fargher wrote:

Am deliriously happy for the lads. They're now feeding off all the criticism of the last 4 years, and are on a marvellous roll. Those people who complain about lack of tries, flowing movement etc do not know rugby and have not played it.

Nervous, of course, about the final, but, hey, when Jonny really gets his boots on watch out either of the SH sides.

  • 61.
  • At 02:58 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • j wrote:

amazing game!
had me on the edge of my seat!..
although it was an inspired effort by the englishmen, i dont think this would be enough to rattle the springbocks.

  • 62.
  • At 02:58 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • James Moyse wrote:

I'm astounded. I think I need a cardiologist to sort out my heart which has not been functioning properly since the 70th minute!

Ratings are pretty much spot on, but for me, Hipkiss was absolutely brilliant when he came on. I have to admit to being a bit vocal when the change was made, but he was fantastic. Roll on Argentina/SA. No matter what happens in the final, we've exceeded everyone's expectations, and enormous credit has to go to the players - if they can play with that much passion in the face of adversity in a major tournament, why can't the football pansies do it too?

One last comment on the style of play - I couldn't care less if it's not free-flowing, try-scoring rugby. How far did that get New Zealand? And besides, I was gripped, as every England/France fans were. It's not the death of rugby, it *is* rugby. We may not have been the most talented of teams in the tournament, but we rank alongside Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, Portugal and Argentina in terms of passion and commitment to the cause.

My only fear is that this will gloss over the 4 years of failure that preceded this world cup, but that's a discussion for another time. C'mon England!!

  • 63.
  • At 02:58 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Colin wrote:

I fail to see why you bother with these individual player ratings. Rugby is a team game, always has been always will be. It's the team effort and ethos what counts, not individual performances. Otherwise, Messrs. Cashckenko and Bollock would be leading Chelski to the top of the Premier League.

Repeat after me: sacrifice yourself for the team, sacrifice yourself for the team, sacrifice yourself for the team ... repeat ad nauseam ...


  • 64.
  • At 02:58 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Sam Tilley wrote:

I'm sorry, but isn't it the most annoying thing that england only pull it out of the bag when it matters? Brian Ashton is boring, his obsession with having fubbling Mike Catt still in the side, a much loved staple of the Woodwood era but still a boring player, why? I'm a rugby lover, i like to watch good rugby, and unfortunatly the only thing that kept me on the edge of my seat was the close score line and not the expansive exciting rugby I want to properly get behind. Still, we are in final, big woo. Play exciting rugby all the time, rugby that is something to talk about long into the night, we did invent it after all...

  • 65.
  • At 02:58 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • jon wrote:

Joe Worsley has to get a 8 or 9 if only for that tackle. Other than that the French should be ashamed of themselves. They played without any ambition. Trying to kick 50m drop goals - just embarrassing - while the fact its iconic player can't play for more than 20 minutes of international rugby tells you all you need to know about a team that lacked the style on which it's historically relied on. As for Michalak - I'd give him a minus figure. It was all over once he was on the pitch.

  • 66.
  • At 03:07 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • j wrote:

amazing game!
had me on the edge of my seat!..
although it was an in spired effort by the englishmen, i dont thin kthis would be enough to rattle the springbocks.

  • 67.
  • At 03:10 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Pom in Oz wrote:

I'm going to enjoy work on Monday!!!!! Never has working with a bunch of Australians been so much fun.

As some of the comments mention. This was not a game you'd show to a newbie to convince them how great rugby is. I don't care. I thought it was fantastic. Bring on the Boks.

...or the Pumas??!

  • 68.
  • At 03:15 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Scott Adams wrote:

Has anyone heard from David Campese?

I wonder what's happened to him. It's all very quiet hear in Australia. Sport mad country but nobody seems to be interested in the Rugby any more.

  • 69.
  • At 03:17 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Yorkie in NZ wrote:

I agree with Pomme- its been a great week to be English in NZ. We were here for the last World Cup and got tickets to the Sydney final courtesy of the AB's fans, so i'm guessing the same will be happening in Paris!The AB's may be the best during the 4 years between World cups, but when it comes down to the important 80minutes... it really helps if you're English and you're name's Jonny.Ugly rugby rules.

  • 70.
  • At 03:22 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Nathaniel jenkins wrote:

Sackey is worhty of more than a 6 considering his amazing play in defence! When france made the break and he committed to one tackle saw that the ball had be passed off then tackeld the receiver into touch before his non committed team mates had got there! SAy what you will about England but both sides proved everyone who had something to say about psychology and previous performance to say. . . In rugby it always comes down to the day not what happened last week and what mumbo jumbo is going on in players heads!

  • 71.
  • At 03:53 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • wishy wrote:

As far as I as am concerned they all deserve a 10! I was at Lens against USA and quite frankly England were Division 1 they were rubbish. I then went to the South African game not much of a change there then. Everyone put them down no hope then for what ever reason things changed and here we are England in the FINAL. Guys please do not give up but what ever you do now I think all of English Rugby is proud be English because of the way you keep going regardless of the opinions of others. Who ever comes next be positive and who knows! ENGLAND double winners?

  • 72.
  • At 05:14 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • argenspro wrote:

a sad day for rugby, this victory is a bad news for all people who love rugby. brillant ? fantastic ? you're killing me. As for me rugby's lover i hope that Puma's or Boks (whoever in fact except England)will win this worldcup for the safe of rugby and his credibility in the world. mediocrity is high with england,please no more four years

  • 73.
  • At 05:14 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Tel wrote:

What a difference from 3 weeks ago!Another top performance by the English forwards. They were, as with the Oz game, immense. Robinson was my MOM though. I thought Laporte blew it by taking off Beauxis too early. Well done chaps. Bring on the Boks or Pumas !

  • 74.
  • At 05:43 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Irish Kevo wrote:

England showed the rest of the top 8 teams that a place in the final was there for the taking for all of them if they just believed in themselves and most importantly - try to outscore the opposition - sounds simple, but NZ tried to win with style instead of doing the basics (cross field kicks on your own 22!!!), England haven't put a foot wrong since the knock out games. Recycle well, kick for position, defend with good discipline (for the most part) and score when the opportunities present themselves.
They may not be classic games - very low scores & winning with the minimal share of possesion - but still winning.
Hats off to them.

  • 75.
  • At 05:54 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • All Black Supporter wrote:

Good on England they showed grit, determination and the mental toughness to win the pressure matches and deserve their place in the final (unlike another team I could mention)Their forwards were excellent and of course Johhny boy, the only concern come final time would be the lack of back line cohesion in the midfield but we will see. I suspect South Africa will go through and that will be an interesting match for sure, again well done England.

  • 76.
  • At 05:57 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Al_Bback wrote:

It was for an Englishman or a Frenchman a tense and exciting game. I keep hearing people saying it was boring ugly rugby. Well in that case I enjoy boring ugly rugby. Sure open running games are enjoyable to watch, but open flowing rugby is what happens in between tournaments when the oppositions are less organised and more weaknesses exist. When you get to the closing stages of a tournament it is grit, determination and RESPECT for the opposition which gets you a win.

Both France and England yesterday showed for me true sporting values none of the negative slating and arrogant comments we sadly now expect from some of the Southern Hemisphere nations. The thing that really cheers me now is that all 4 teams that have made the semi's are teams that have not gobbed off about how good they are and how bad or boring the opposition are they have just got on with the job.

  • 77.
  • At 06:04 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • tim skelton wrote:

Was catt mom to ensure he starts in the final and is not replaced? his performance, apart from one or two instances, did not inspire nor did that of his replacement flood.
Watching in Greece on TV5 (French) their commentators were not happy and were very biased but at least they weren't barnes!

  • 78.
  • At 06:13 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • JK wrote:

Congratulations England - well desrved victory. Robinson superb,Moody fantastic and what an impact by Hipkiss. Johnny kicked when it mattered most - are you watching Ronan O Gara this is what real class is all about. After 2 minutes you know Michalak the Magician had left his wand at home but as a character you have to love Chabel. Well done England

  • 79.
  • At 06:15 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Brister wrote:

Watched the game here in Boulder, Colorado (home of USA Rugby). For me Robinson was MoM. He was solid under the high kicks and made a couple of breaks that looked exciting and potentially dangerous. It must be inspiring to the rest of the team to have such a solid player at the back knowing that hes great in defense and scares the hell out of the opposition with ball in hand. How can a man in his form never play again after next week?

  • 80.
  • At 06:25 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • michael foster wrote:

I thought the whole game was absolute dross from both sides.
The handling was appalling,just a complete mess.One try! complete and utter garbage.

  • 81.
  • At 06:26 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Simon Cherry wrote:

Great game. With family members living in NZ France USA and Aus I finally have something to talk back about. But having lived in SA I am a bit concerned.
Scores are irrelevant in such a team performance.
We can do this i think, but would rather face the pumas than the boks.
This was a truely great (if ugly) team performance.
Well done England.
I hope we also qualify for the Euro football !!
Simon

  • 82.
  • At 06:33 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • bob wrote:

England looked knacked at 70min. This many massive games makes me wonder if they could manage a full on 80 against SA next weekend.

  • 83.
  • At 06:43 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Keith Roberts wrote:

I must apologise to the neighbours once they come to life.

Robinson played a blinder - he seems stronger now than he was four years ago. It was a massive team effort though and its probably unfair to single him out in a real 15 man effort that never allowed the French to play.

If thats ugly, lets be ugly. See you in Paris next weekend.

  • 84.
  • At 07:28 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • EBERG wrote:

Looking forward to another game of kicking ping pong next week. Is anyone else amazed how decent sides are being sucked in this school boy game plan? I just wish somebody would pick the bloody ball up run with it and then pass it rather than hoof it up in the air. I have never been so bored.........

  • 85.
  • At 07:31 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Craig wrote:

Magic, brilliant.

I know people want flowing running rugby, so do I. But I want a team that wins even more.

Well done England, looking forward to next weekend.

What's even better about it, I live in NZ now and get to be happy around kiwi family members :)

  • 86.
  • At 07:35 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Phil Cliffe wrote:

Agree with Colin @ 65 - Team game!

I watched in Thailand along with a crowd of fellow BRITS and Irish who complained about the English yet again, as being a poor side not fit to lace the boots etc etc.

Anyway, next weeks sports quiz has the following rugby questions:

How many world cup finals have WALES played in?

Ditto Ireland?

Ditto Scotland?

Ditto France?

Or am I missing something here?

I expect my friends to get maximum points!!!

  • 87.
  • At 07:40 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • jack the cat wrote:

If Jonny had kicked to his historic percentage England would have been out of site.
Gomersall needs to stop kicking aimlessly. The England backs get very little ball but when they do their pace scares the opposition who give away pentalties at the first turn over to avoid any continuity.
sackey has had a great a couple of games - a revelation. Tait has gone from boy to man in this world cup.
Robinson easily MOM. Defensively perfect. Never gets turned over and wins a penalty in front of the posts to win England the game - After the last two worlds cups and his Lion's performances down under he now must walk into any 'world's greatest 15 ever'
Most southern hemisphere players place him there already

  • 88.
  • At 07:40 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Rob in California wrote:

Ou est le papier ?.....sorry.

Look - here I am, a proud Englander in California (lucky me). The only way I can get the rugby is to subscribe to DirectTV (think ''Sky'' - at $80 a month) then I have to subscribe to Setanta Sports - a specialist DirectTV channel ($15 extra a month) and then I have to pay-per-view on Setanta for each game....$25 a go. At times like this I recall why I used to love the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

On to the game - we were magnificent. So it wasn't pretty - but I have noticed they do not inscribe that next to your name on the cup if you win (doesn't say ''1987 - New Zealand - forgot to choke this year'' - for example.

Before I go - one more thing. Watching the rugby on Setanta is exceedingly painful at times - mainly at half time and after the game. I am grateful we have it but we have Irish commentators and a panel made up of nobodies - Neil (who?) Francis, Cieran Fitzgerald and Matt 'the coach' Williams. (okay Cieran Fitzgerlad is a somebody - but in my book he is now officially a nobody after todays comments).

You have to wonder if the people watched the same game and the same tournament ? Why do they hate the English so much? After the game the panel mediator asked for their opinion and that official nobody Neil Francis described it - in his opening statement - as a 'tragedy for rugby'. Neil - YOU are the tragedy !

There is nothing like objective commentary from a panel...and this was nothing like objective commentary from a panel !! (Did you know that ''at 6-5, if England had not scored a try they would not have been in the game''......hello...earth to Setanta panel, are you reading me ?

Not wanting to be outdone, that Australian coaching leviathan Matt Williams (yes, my tongue is pushing a hole in my cheek) got into the act of belitting the English performance. However he struggles to string more than two cohesive thoughts or arguments together which probably explains a lot about Scottish rugby success under his tutelage (actually, thinking about it, it probably made no difference !). He also needs a haircut but he needs a job to pay for that I expect.

To his credit the mediator (Daire O'Brien I think it is - also Irish) called them to order and even mocked them for daring to suggest that the referee was at fault - ''the first sign of the desperate is to blame the referee'' he opined...good for you Daire.

Not to be put off, Neil Francis then dared to suggest that a conspiracy theory was afoot because a South African referee had been allowed to referee the game and he had somehow wangled an English victory because they were the worse team and the one South Africa would prefer to play in the final. Daire stepped in once again......I think he feared the show's credibility ratings were about to plummet..this is after all sport and not the X-Files !

Oh dear - it actually became funny to watch it.

Anyway - off to the final next week....another $25 for the pleasure....a small price to pay. Trying to get my Californian brethren excited is a struggle but we'll enjoy the day and if we win, and lets face it - South Africa or Argentina - its going to be a nail biter, it will be a beautiful thing.

I wonder what the sour puss, jealous, short-sighted nobodies on the Setanta panel will have to say? Actually on second thoughts...I care not a jot....as I recall Ireland failed to get past the first hurdle and that is a sweet thought on its own.

Come on the boys !

  • 89.
  • At 07:45 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • John Parker wrote:

All this talk about ugly rugby is quite strange for me. I bet, to a man, the All Blacks would take that victory to have progressed to the final.
As said on ´óÏó´«Ã½ World "beauty is in the eye of the World Cup holder".

BRING IT ON.

  • 90.
  • At 07:46 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Julian Manning wrote:

Comment 66 knows sweet FA about history or rugby. If he had played the game at any level he woud know that rubgy has almost never been simply about flowing moves, nice to watch as they may be. It's all about guts, determination, teamwork and the ability to out think and out manouver your opponents, whoever they might be. If they wish to play in a certain way, then shut it down. Any team that wants to beat England now will have to meet us on our own terms. SA made us play their game two weeks ago. Not next time. If you don't like the intellectual nitty gritty of sport watch football, or big brother. England have played to win, not entertain, since the SA game. Sport is played for mere entertainment sometimes - but to paraphrase a man who knew better, it's far more important than that.

  • 91.
  • At 08:02 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • AndyinCanada wrote:

Hi folks, watched from Calgary Canada. What a game. Will be wearing the red rose to bed with pride this evening! The commentary we had in Canada almost accused the English of cynnical cheating. Alas no Canada! The French just got caught out and kicked too long or too short, playing into the English game. As for our England team, half of whom should be in the retirement home, 30s are the new 20s. Nice one lads. Viva La Anglaise!

  • 92.
  • At 08:03 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Mike Towl wrote:

Re-comments 26 & 28, the commentators. Totally agree, woeful! More suited to commentating the World Rubbick Cube Championships. Hang on though, don't the Beeb have the six-nations? Butler, Moore, Cotter, Davies, Healey and an assortment of gym-slipped giggling girly interviewers. Hmm. Must remember to put new batteries in the flicker, don't want to be caught with the volume to high. This lot annoys the cat.
As for the other comments, dead right. Billy Whizz was, is, a class apart.

  • 93.
  • At 08:03 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • GaryLeroy wrote:

Don't know if there really is an improvement from when SA beat England 36-0. All they have done is beat Australia and if you live in the southern hemisphere you know they are a team on the decline. They are presently living on a reputation. Yes England have played with more intensity. But in terms of skill and go forward i dodn't see much. France should have won but kicked too much whilst it was obvious every time they ran @ England it seemed they would score. Same thing happened against Austraila. SA and NZ are the best side in world rugby. The AB had an off day. So unless the Boks have an off day. Man for Man South Africa are better. And they are far better tasctical kickers than France. And their rush defence and counters from turnovers are phenomenal. So we'll see 20th October.

  • 94.
  • At 08:10 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • craig wrote:

What a game! Hats off to both teams for super intense affair! I agree with the ratings. It was a superb team performance. It was particularly encouraging to see the youngsters, Tait, Hipkiss and Flood look so comfortable. If you had to single out key performers, I would have to say Moody, Shaw, Wilko and Robinson were all top drawer but the whole team were really excellent last night.

In fact, it was quite funny as in France, TF1 (their equivalent to ´óÏó´«Ã½1), thought the English players were going to tire and the French would nick it in the last 10 minutes but it was completely the opposite. We controlled the possession in the vital last 10 minutes which is why we're in the final again. Hats off to Wilkinson for another big game performance!

As you can guess for me, a Brit living and working in France, the week has been a little bit of a nightmare! One of the reasons why I was hoping for the Blacks as sometimes the French can be very, very heavy! I'm going to have a very interesting Monday but really I don't care about getting my own back, I'm just thinking about next weekend! C'MON ENGLAND!

I had a feeling France had their lucky game (yellow card, Carter went off, conversion in off the sticks, forward pass to Michalak) against the Blacks and their luck was about to run out. We had the run of the ball for the try but we never looked back. We gave a few silly penalties away (although totally disagree with the 3rd awarded to France). However, we tackled like tigers and our forwards took over the match after 70 minutes. You had the feeling it was ours even if the French had a few dangerous bursts. Our tackling was immense and we were starting to gain lots of ground and creating space for Wilko!


You really have to write this down to appreciate the real value of what the English XV did so here goes: THEY BEAT THE FRENCH IN FRANCE IN THE WC SEMI-FINAL! The superb photo (hats off to the photographer!) of Wilko's match winning drop goal attempt with Chabal looking on is now my wallpaper! However, please don't dwell on this! You're another match from going down in history as the only side to have retained the WC! WE CAN DO THIS!

  • 95.
  • At 08:18 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • moo wrote:

moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

  • 96.
  • At 08:23 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • babbo_umbro wrote:

Not pretty but a fabulous contest. Tait and Sackey have really come of age during the competition, think they deserve special mention.

How can the French organisers offer Wilkinson a ball that is not one of the officicial match balls? Twice? Stinks.

  • 97.
  • At 08:24 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • One Legged Ed wrote:

I'm left feeling that the better team lost, but the team who wanted it more won. Good thing rugby is a game that needs heart and body.

  • 98.
  • At 08:26 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Barrel wrote:

Agree with post 26. The game would be far more pleasureable to watch without Stuart Barnes drivvle to listen too. In 2003 England won because they had numerous players (Thompson, Johnson, Hill, Back, Wilkinson, Greenwood & Robinson) that were the best in the world in their position. In 2007 they don't have one player who can make that claim (although Shaw is in the from of his life) so they play as a team and for each other. Gomorsall's rating was generous, pass was off as well as his atrocious kicking. Would have given Corry higher - The man was the Press's scapegoat for Andy Robinson being a woeful coach but he has carried on and done whatever has been asked of him. Doing the same job that Hill did four years ago - quiet, effective dog work that goes unnoticed. Moody had another good game but England paid the price at the breakdown for not having a genuine openside, on another day with that much possession France would have scored 35 points. One last point - "Catt sound in defence", please tell me you are joking. Ashton must make a decision for the final. Defensive Player: Farrell. Attacking Player: Barkley. Catt is neither. Also Hipkiss must be in the mix after his performance as sub - does any centre stay on their feet better ?

  • 99.
  • At 08:26 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Craig Comerfrord wrote:

RE unnatractive rugby.
I think New Zealand played the most attractive rugby in a passionate game against France.
BUT THEY LOST. They spurned enough drop chances to have run our comfortable winners because they were unable to not think about their game other than scoring tries.
Whilst yesterdays game was not as attractive, I thought England were particularly good at recovering from their errors in handling. That in itself was great to watch.

  • 100.
  • At 08:26 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • craig wrote:

After having read a few comments on "ugly" rugby, I feel obliged to reply!

We are no longer in the 80s where Mr Campese jinks past 4 players to slot it under the posts. Campese would not have the same impact in today's game! The players are bigger, faster, meaner and yes, professional! They get paid to play the game and the expectations are high.

The quality of both sides yesterday didn't permit an open attacking game. The French and English teams both are very well organised, disciplined and strong defensively and cover the width of the ground with relative ease. However, "ugly" rugby. There were some superb bursts from both sides and tackling and kicking represent a very important part of the game. It's not just about going over the line!

Personally, I prefer a tense hard-fought contest like last night than a really open free-scoring affair (Fidji-S. Africa for example).

  • 101.
  • At 08:29 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • john wrote:

As usual the foot of johnnie and you all think of glory Sud Afrika x 14

  • 102.
  • At 08:29 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • danny t wrote:

i think that the england scrum had the advantage of the front five of France and should have scored from 5 yrds when Easter lost control, a rare mistake on the night as they kept a very good French back row quiet.
A scrappy, tight, nervy game and I hope for more of the same next week. I was impressed by Hipkiss who added some directness and stood up well in the tackle, should start next week.

  • 103.
  • At 08:31 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Alex wrote:

First, I would like to congratulate our "best enemies" as we call you in France. I'm not convinced that you deserved your place into the finals but France didn't derserve it...definitely. I'm so sorry for my English friends to write that but, I really hope that England won't win the Cup. I mean what a poor rugby, we would be back to the past with a boring rugby. Today, England is unable to produce a thrilling, exciting rugby. Passing is so so poor. Really, you have to be proud of your team: it's just unbelievable to make its way to the finals with this kind of rugby. They did their best, for sure. So, let's go South Africa! (Good luck England!)

  • 104.
  • At 08:33 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Rugby lover wrote:

Interesting contrast yesterday, England & France playing aerial tennis, kicking the ball away with gay abandon. With one try to show for 80 minutes of effort.

Rugby league grand final with the two premier teams in England, keeping possession & delivering exciting free flowing rugby with six tries.

I know where the real entertainment was!

  • 105.
  • At 08:37 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Oicsdontexist wrote:

Thankyou all black supporter and Al_Bback for your perceptive ad unbiased comments. Other writers are not right to say it doesn't matter about our backs and try scoring. It would be nice and will come but it is important to win and play to your strengths as England have done. Clearly writers who criticise us for this have never played the game, dont understand the game and have never 'won' a world cup. They should realise this is Rugby UNION and not the sevens version either i.e. proper scrums and real forwards. Please go and watch LEAGUE if you dont like either of these! I am concerned though that this unexpected success will let Francis Baron (and PLR) off the hook for the past four years

  • 106.
  • At 08:42 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Ray Phillips wrote:

Great game for the cognescenti. Well thought out tactics well excuted. I love this attritional stuff. JR plainly outstanding player on the field. Not much between the teams but England could and maybe should have won more comfortably.

  • 107.
  • At 08:44 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • steve wrote:

Being a pom in Oz.. i can't wait to go to work on Monday morning! Laporte was the undoing of France. The caveman in at second row? Michalak on for Beauxis, and taking Betsen off? French suicide!!

They were a chance up until then. England now know how to win, they are a team that can grind out a win.

My last point is re Wilkinson, I am sure that any international team would love to have the marketing power of Jonny. He is responsible for alot of the success of Rugby in England and indeed World Rugby.

Can you see Matt Dunning on the front cover of Men's Health.... maybe Famyard Animals weekly!!

  • 108.
  • At 08:54 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • paulsteven wrote:

10 out of 10 for team play and conviction!

Not beautiful rugby for me, but given half a chance Robinson, Tait and others did well with ball in hand and looked more likely to score than France did. Once the self-belief is there the ability can be used. I think we're capable of hurting teams more with our running game than we have.

Sackey has got to go into contact better - too much turnover from him - we were a little lucky the French didn't get more payback from that.

I don't think England need fear either the Boks or the Pumas but they've got to get their kicking sorted out - a couple of reasonable kicks from Gomarsall and Catt, as well as Jonny, but I really think we have a lot more in us.

Good luck next weekend!

  • 109.
  • At 09:06 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Allen wrote:

Englands last two semi final wins have not been pretty.

9-6 against Scotland in 91

The Wilkinson masterclass of goal kicking against France in 03 (did we score a try?)

The Final games have never been high scoring affairs. In fact the last Final was the first were a try had been scored since 91.

  • 110.
  • At 09:23 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • myownpetard wrote:

Maybe the game wasn't a classic, but it was just wonderful...........

How games can be determined by single events! Two inspirational moments in defence - courtesy of messrs Sackey and Worsley - have now seen us through the quarter finals and into the final. Hats off to them!

OK so, JW may not be at the top of his place kicking game - that will return - but maybe in a perverse way it makes the others realise that it's a team game and they can't just rely on Jonny.

  • 111.
  • At 09:26 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Marco wrote:

As a last 10 minute cliffhanger that was brilliant. As a game of rugby that was absolutely rubbish. Everyone should drop at least 1 point in the ratings. The amount of fumbles and turnover ball due to mistakes and not good opposition play was very disappointing, as was the horrendously poor tactical kicking a la SA game.
Every Eng backline attack crabbed across the field apart from a couple of incisive broken play movements (Robbo & Hipkiss). Something has to be done here as we're never gonna score except from penalties, drop goals & freak bounces and you can't rely on these playing a more savvy, consitent team like SA (prob).
BTW Traille has been so unfairly blamed for the try. Any other bounce and he'd probably have been fine in his positioning.
As an England fan I'm pleased but as a rugby fan I feel very down.

  • 112.
  • At 09:27 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • grumpy old man wrote:

Sackey deserves Either a 7 or 8. His positioning was superb throughout, his defensive effort immense, and the few times he got the ball he presented it well when tackled. It's not his fault that the rest of the team didn't work him some space to run in.

  • 113.
  • At 09:31 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Nickhfc wrote:

On the subject of the non-match balls: we were told during the week about the 6 match balls (numbered) and how JW was now satsified with them and his kicking. Yet during the match, somehow, another ball was thrown to him to kick (he noticed and threw it back). Where did it come from? Did he miss two other kicks with 'non-match balls'. Very suspicious if you're a conspiracy theorist.

If Lewsey is not injured, Mike Catt should not play in the final. His passing is panicky and kicking inaccurate. Hipkiss looked v lively.

Swing low......

  • 114.
  • At 09:32 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • orang wrote:

Sour grapes from all the nations that are not in the final!!!.

England are in the finals.

NZ & Australia may have played the most expansive & "Attractive" rugby against poor oppostion but when they came up against France and England, attractive rugby couldn't be reproduced!!!

The answer is simple: When rugby is played at the highest level with high stakes, ATTRACTIVE rugby does not come into the equation.
The final will no doubt be a tight affair and I doubt if there will be attractive rugby on display but all English fans will be on the edge of our seats.

  • 115.
  • At 09:33 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Eddy wrote:

After awarding the whole team 9 and 10s last week think the ratings a bit harsh today.

What a performance.

  • 116.
  • At 09:37 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Bill wrote:

Man of the match was Paul Robinson, just walking out on to the pitch, he seemed to have such a swagger, and looked unbeatable, when the game started he took every high ball, and that run in second half was superb, though not good enough for ITV to show it again.

  • 117.
  • At 09:40 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • David wrote:

I am a little surprised at the rating for Jonny Wilkinson. I watched the game in a packed bar in Southern Ireland and although the verbal abuse, and delight at a likely French win was evident from the Irish, they all stood and celebrated a fine Wilkinson performance. OK on the day a few kicks went astray but his overall performance was magical. A clear leader on the day in both tackles and attitude. When a player was needed in the thick of the action it was Jonny who lifted his game to beat the French. A deserved 8+ would have been a more realistic rating

  • 118.
  • At 09:42 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Jim wrote:

The key was that no-one played badly or made bad mistakes - e.g. Tait's defence was great and for effort everyone was 10 out of 10.

I note England have the defensive coach that Ireland disposed of ?? - maybe he should get a rating as England were defending for long long periods in the match?

Barnes' commentating was bizarre - I couldn't believe we were watching the same match (I listened on 5 Live last week). France certainly won the first half in terms of play - but were only a point up; in the end without Lewsey's try the score was 9 - 9 which on territory and play might have been generous to England.

But England ended on a high - I can agree with the comment above that they looked knackered but they had run France's tank dry so the last ten minutes weren't a problem at all.

With regard to the ratings they are fine this time. In attack something wasn't quite right at 10 and 12 but then Betsen was playing out of his skin. One of these days Tait at 13 will make that clean break and when he does he will be great for England for years to come.

For France they must be wondering how they had all that possession but weren't able to get more points. If they had attempted the drop-goals a bit closer in it might have been different but the rest was down to fantastic defensive play by England.


  • 119.
  • At 09:43 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • David wrote:

Solid but not good enough to ensure a win next week. Too many turnovers allowed because the forwards were not there in time, too many long kicks which did not create either try-scoring opportunities, territorial gains or pressure and some careless penalties (but relatively few as compared to the early matches). Come on for one final push - fix these errors and we have a chance.

  • 120.
  • At 09:53 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • oligold11 wrote:

Super performance, Jason Robinson was excellent, and when Joe Worsley came on he was superb. Excellent defensive display, and we took our chances when they finally came to us.
I think Sackey deserved more than a 6, because he made a few excellent tackles, and generally performed well.
On the French side, i thought Dussatoir was excellent, and was by far their best forward. I would have given him an 8

  • 121.
  • At 10:01 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • CJ wrote:

Gommarsal - outstanding again

i) saved 2 French scores
ii) superb box kick for our score

MOM for me.

  • 122.
  • At 10:05 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Chris Squires wrote:

This world cup is so tight it has distilled down to two decisions. a)Sackey's 3 on 1 against the Aussies where he could be hero or zero and made the right decision (guess?) and b)worsley tap tackle yesterday. If a) hadn't been made, b) couldn't have happened.
On such fine margins are the great separated from the also-rans. We would have been home by the quarters but for a). Only problem is if we win..... Sir Brian Aston? Hmmm luckiest "Sir" ever if that becomes the case.

  • 123.
  • At 10:15 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Duncan wrote:

It's amazing how differently people can see the same game (allowing for some bitter anti-English prejudices). I settled down to watch a battle - guys putting everything they had physically on the line. We got that. There's an honesty and beauty in seeing someone give their all in any sport or any situation, and in rugby it often demands pure power and aggression. If those who are critical hadn't realised this before watching the game, they need find another sport, for to be so begrudging to two sets of players who gave and risked more than almost any of us would, only highlights their own shortcomings, not those of either side. I thought it was a magnificent game played by two incredible sets of players.

  • 124.
  • At 10:26 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Michael Moll wrote:

I think Brian Ashton should be congratulated with the supurb effort he has done with his team. As a whole the forwards were very good again, strong, determined and aggresive, giving a good delivery of ball to the backs.
The defence was as good, if not better than last week.
Keep up the progress in the team and "Bill" will stay where he belongs.

  • 125.
  • At 10:26 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • nick evans wrote:

yes congrats to england best team won on the night,but very poor rugby by france i,m afraid they played into englands hand.

so will it be south africa or argentina?lets hope its south africa for a good game of rugby.

so how are england going to turn round 36 - 0 from a month ago?sorry but england dont deserve to win the world cup playing boring rugby,kick and drive havent the backs got any talent???

  • 126.
  • At 10:27 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • cavan wrote:

You have to search very hard on the Aussi web-sites to find any news of Englands outstanding performance!!

  • 127.
  • At 10:27 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Ed wrote:

Largely accurate ratings, but I think you are generous to Easter. Our tight five pumelled the French at scrum time, and significantly Easter fouled up his ball control (for the second week in a row) as it looked like a push over try was on the cards. I think you are also being generous to their props who were, when the pressure came on near to their line, not good enough.

  • 128.
  • At 10:28 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • joy wrote:

does anyone know who was man of the match last night?!

  • 129.
  • At 10:29 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • John Adamson wrote:

Just an extra word on Jason Robinson.Largely agree with the ratings but would give Robinson 9: not only did he field difficult high balls all night, kicked well and made that electric break referred to,but it was another of his incisive breaks that created the field position leading directly to the penalty that gave England the lead and indirectly to the killer drop goal.

  • 130.
  • At 10:32 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • miltonf wrote:

Couldn't agree more with post 90. Been toying with the idea of subscribing to Setanta but dont think i'll bother now. Think they need to realise if they want a bigger audience they need to move away from the one eyed anti English panels they keep putting together. Nothing against controversial comments (as you get with RTE on the football) but needs to be balanced. As for Gary Leroy in post 95, get the impression he thinks SA are in the final already!! Think the one thing to learn from this world cup is don't count your chickens. Come on the Pumas

  • 131.
  • At 10:32 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Jon wrote:

Thought Corry's rating was generous. He was anonymous again - would still prefer to see Rees in for the final, and let Moody play 6. It's his true position.

As for the French ratings, very harsh on Elissalde. Best French player on the park by a mile, and if Beauxis hadn't kicked away possession as much, and too deep to players who were very comfortable under the high ball, France would have won on the back of his performance.

  • 132.
  • At 10:34 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • john in spain wrote:

Once again I feel that Paul Sackey has been seriously underated.
In these columns he has previously been slated and his defensive capabilities derided. Yesterday he was as solid as a rock, taking one high ball beautifully and making tackle after tackle.
But surely a wing needs quality centres who have the ability to create a little bit of space for the men outside them. England's centres have many fine qualities but their creativity is sadly lacking. Sackey has scored four tries and not one of them has come from a pass from the centres.
Come on you guys, I'm a Scot who has enjoyed seeing England upset the odds and play with such collective spirit, but as a former wing who had to endure match after match playing outside people who could not pass if their lives depended on it get off Sackeys back and give him the praise he deserves.

  • 133.
  • At 10:35 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Jez wrote:

Ref comment 95: Gary, so you reckon every time Australia and France ran at England they looked like scoring - fair point, only they didn't which is down to great defence, which is part of the game. As a coach myself I ask players to create and exploit space. What England did was close down those spaces in a rearguard action that has never been seen before in RWC history (and as much as I dont rate Joe Worsley my hat goes off to that tackle!!)
Point 2: Why do we need a MOM? The whole point about England is that they are a team, they haven't relied on one superstar which is where France, Australia and NZ have gone wrong. SA and Argentina don't rely on stars either, they are teams too!
Point 3: Stuart Barnes - he's actually a pretty perceptive commentator. I might not always agree with all he says, but he does often speak the truth and isn't afraid to say what he thinks plus he is certainly not biased to any team. Now imagine if this was on ´óÏó´«Ã½, you'd have Eddie Butler (apprently there are only Welsh teams worth watching) and Jerry Guscott (useless). Brian Moore is great comedy value but that is about it.

  • 134.
  • At 10:35 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Mike Towl wrote:

Sorry to write twice in a day to your blog but I have to ask the question, what are all these antipodeans doing contributing. This is the RWC final approaching. What's it got to do with them?

  • 135.
  • At 10:35 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Samantha Taylor wrote:

I am not an expert I watch rugby because I enjoy it. I can not understand all this nonsense about kicking spoiling the game. Historically a try did not give you any points it was so there was a TRY at kicking for goal. The proper name is 'rugby football'.It seems to me that the problem is sour grapes and very large chips on shoulders. Come on England you can do it!!!

  • 136.
  • At 10:40 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Mark, Paris wrote:

4 words

ON EST EN FINALE

Take your sour grapes and chew on them for another four years you French posters (yes another four years).

The guys around me in the stadium accepted what happened. The best team won. England in the final, French home.

They shook hands, congratulated and wished us luck for the final. Dignity in defeat.

Amazing Amazing Amazing

  • 137.
  • At 10:42 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • wrote:

All the people who go on about the running game forget one aspect of rugby which is what makes it such a great game-tackling. The tackling of France in the NZ game was immense and so was that of England in the last two games. Personally I prefer to watch the tacking than the running which is why I've enjoyed England's last two games.

The tackle by Stevens on Chabal and then Worsleys tap tackle were fantastic. Lets hope for more in the final

  • 138.
  • At 10:43 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Dave Mason wrote:

Battlers 14

Bottlers 9

And still the World Champions

To all the Kiwis and the Aussies
4 More Years

Come on the Pumas

  • 139.
  • At 10:44 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • GAVIN wrote:

If anyone puts England down through doubt or disbelief then I have this to say to you =

How dare you disbelieve in the World cup winners!

How dare you put such a great country down!

How dare you even think such loonaticall thoughts!

If you are not through then you are not worthy!

If you did not qualify then you are incapable!

Glory be to ENGLAND and its people.

Glory be to the great and worldly known English spirit!

The gods once again shine on our souls and see our hard working spirit of life.

Bring on the final!!!

  • 140.
  • At 10:48 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Vince wrote:

I totally agree with Barnes being shocking at calling the game. Two of kicks that Wilko missed were not exactly straight forward(one right onthe touch line, the other 5m in his own half!)but Barnes consistently stated how poorly Wilko was playing! The tackles he made all night were unbelieveable so too was his rucking. As for taking the pressure shots when it mattered, he showed that he is one of the top 3 Fly halfs in the world after being injured for the best part of 3 years! Of course he does not make the England team and of course he alone is not responsible for the England victory.But i do think that if wasn't playing then England would not be playing in a final next week. As a Welshman i can only dream of having somebody of his class in our backline.

  • 141.
  • At 10:48 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Tom Andrews wrote:

Edge of the emotional seat stuff by the end I was reduced to patriotic tears...absolutely brilliant England...fantastic performance though brutally ugly, but the result is all that counts...a world cup final place.
Chabal got it right when he was interviewed after the match ..'England didn't win, we lost it'
80 minutes from absolute greatness, but whatever happens the boys have done us proud lets hope that the government take something out of this and set up more rugby facilities get more into the game and promote it as a sport for all.
Come on next week, whoever we play....England can do it!!!!

  • 142.
  • At 10:49 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Toddie wrote:

Heart attack? Almost, I watched it in hospital on oxygen with only one lung.
Ratings ok though Sackey has to present better ball, we cannot afford to turn it over.
The aim of rugby is to score more points than the opposition in 80 minutes (not 70 Monsieur Traille!) and if the opposition cannot prevent this, then tough! It was attritional rugby (watch sevens or league if you don't like this) and the French chose to join in rather than play the 'flair' game, so tough again!
I didn't believe at the tournament start, but could it be?

  • 143.
  • At 10:55 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Dave Mason wrote:

Well Done England you have made the English Nation proud,
as to all the sour grapes from the Aussies and Kiwis 4 more years boys back to the Basketball and forward passes, coming in from the side obstruction spear tackles AKA The TRI Nations/, We might let you join the 6 Nations one Day After Argentina and Fiji of course,
More power to Northen Hemisphere Rugby, Oh and in 2011 We will send our Best Team.

  • 144.
  • At 10:58 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Ryan Kittendorf wrote:

Tait had a storming game - his defence was supurb, didnt miss a tackle all night and put some big ones in.

Gommarsal has been the english player of the tournament for me so far, an outstanding link between forwards and backs and controlling the game well!!

Very impressed with Hipkiss when he came on too, stayed on his feet for ages when being tackled!! Bring on next week!!

  • 145.
  • At 11:00 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • cb wrote:

Well if you think pompous Barnes is bad (he is !), be grateful you do not have to listen to Paul Dickinson on Star Sports: gets NOTHING right and spends most of his time correcting mistakes.

  • 146.
  • At 11:07 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • craig wrote:

Bad, bad, bad sport - comment 124! I don't know how anybody can claim Brian Ashton as lucky if he wins the WC with the preparation he's had! C'mon give the guy a break! We're in the final of the WC and we look very, very good! In a relatively short space of time, it's an incredible job he's managed to do in creating such a solid side.

I tend to agree with a comment on the Aussies / NZ. They look good against weak teams but they were both made to look like normal sides against England and France.

I know rugby league quite well and think it's a decent game but I find it a lot less entertaining by a long distance than rugby union.

It's also interesting to see outside of the U.K., how many people have been deceived my mis-placed, biased commentary. TF1 (France) wasn't great (we have a football comentator doing the rugby and thanks to TF1, we've missed a hatful of important games in the group stages) but we have Thierry La Croix as co-commentator, who keeps it justified.

  • 147.
  • At 11:08 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • freddie wrote:

gd game by england


south africa will win the world cup.

  • 148.
  • At 11:13 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Duke of Wellington wrote:

I guess it was hard for you to see so well from the crowd. You failed to notice / mention some great tackling and safe hands from Sackey. He's a rock!

  • 149.
  • At 11:17 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Mark-wrights wrote:

It is frustrating to read comments that constantly refer to English rugby being dull. Put yourself into the shoes of ANY player in ANY sport EVER (with the possible exception of basketball which is for show-offs). When a player has a chance to make an impact I guarantee you they are not thinking "well I was going to take the contact and set up a ruck to facilitate the drop goal we've just busted a gut for for the last 5 minutes but on second thoughts that's a bit dull...I think I'll do a cartwheel then pass the ball behind my back. That'll entertain the folks at home." If you want drama watch soaps. If you want to watch rugby, watch it and don't moan that you aren't always on the edge of your seat. If you can't grasp the game well enough to find a brutal forward contest interesting that's your loss and may I say, a reflection of your ignorance of good rugby. [fair scores for all I think]

  • 150.
  • At 11:24 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • james wrote:

Who cares if it was a ugly game. England were written off by people after the SA match and weren't meant to get past the group stage!

I would have given Sackey at least a 7, if not more, and Tait an 8. They have both been underrated in the last two matches. They both dealt very well with what they were given and cleaned up a lot of the loose ball.

Hipkiss also played very well after coming on for Lewsey and made it very difficult for the French midfield.

MOM for me has to be either Moody for the forwards, another great game for him, or, for the backs, Robinson, great darting runs and breaks from him.

Well done England.

  • 151.
  • At 11:24 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

I have to admit to being a little bit fed up with Stuart Barnes and his style of commentating. I have always perceived him to be a little bitter about his experience with England as the no.2 choice for flyhalf. He doesn't seem to miss an opportunity to criticise England and individual players. Is it just me?

  • 152.
  • At 11:29 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • joe guiseppi wrote:

Cause france were soo EXCITING!!!! all they did was up and under after up and under!!!!!

  • 153.
  • At 11:39 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Pete in Portugal wrote:

Tremendous display from a tremendous team - what can you say. My heart murmur is now a heart orchestra. Love the boys' efforts but why does Sackey constantly look "pedestrian". Yes he did take out Chabal but walk into him not ran, and with the help of another player. He's done some great things but please Paul, hit them a bit harder in the tackles.
I'm still stunned but with a huge smile on my face.

  • 154.
  • At 11:44 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • kjfrazer wrote:

Re:No 22

Not from the southern hemisphere by any chance are you? Don't worry, you can probably sell your 'dead cert' final ticket on ebay.

  • 155.
  • At 11:44 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Stu Peters wrote:

I hear you Rob (comment 90), here in Canada, we pay Eastlink $100+ for the channels, $15 extra for Setanta and $25 for the game. THEN you have to watch the sour Irish plonkers belittle the English team, insult the referee, etc., etc. I was astounded at their utter refusal to give any credit to the worthy winners of yesterday's game.

Sore losers or what? Setanta, will get no more $$ from me after next week's final. Well, not for another 4 years anyway.

Credit where it's due, as an ex-scrum half I was delighted with Gomersall's chip ahead that resulted in the try, he must have been happy to have caught his opposite number in possession once or twice too. Under-rated player imho.

  • 156.
  • At 11:47 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Tim Gallwey wrote:

How can Elissalde get such a good rating? He consistently messed around behind the scrum and maul/ruck for so long losing any chance of quick ball. This is a fault with many scrum halves these days e.g. Stringer. What are they doing? Then on one occasion when he sgould have done it, and would have had two England players offside, he didn't. He must take the blame for a lot of the ineffectiveness of the French backline despite the dominance of the French pack in broken play.

  • 157.
  • At 11:52 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • kjfrazer wrote:

To all those jealous individuals who harp on about 'ugly' and 'boring' rugby. There is nothing sweeter or more attractive in a knock-out competition than actually winning and progressing to the next stage. Ask the All Blacks if they would swap 'flair' rugby for a place in the final and I think we would know the answer. Ditto Australia and France. Maybe if said teams placed a bit more emphasis on the bump and grind of winning rugby instead of showboating the comments would be more valid. It's one thing to mock and jeer when a team is being hammered all over the pitch but when they are actually winning AND in the final you really have to examine what drives you to make these remarks. Jealousy is a terrible affliction. If you're that petty-minded start watching football instead.

  • 158.
  • At 11:52 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • spooner wrote:

125 kick and drive?
Just read some interesting stats, no 10s kicking from hand in the 2007 RWC:
JW 35%
Dan Carter 48%
Butch James & Lionel Beauxis 42%
Cold stats may not always tell the full story but it does seem that some people have selective memories.

  • 159.
  • At 11:54 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Maeve wrote:

Yet again the team who do not play rugby win the game. Fair play to the english, but as a neutral fan I found it quite boring. Hoping the match today is a little more exciting and would bet on whatever team win today to win the whole thing.

  • 160.
  • At 11:58 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • jacko wrote:

what the hell is Marshmellow Tentacles on about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!comment 22. (Unfortunately it was another dire advert for world rugby).
It was a fantastic game and all the players on the pitch gave it there all, i've played in a semi final game like that one where you have to sweat blood for every yard, so know what a great achievement it was
So anyone who's anyone will agree that our team has the passion and pride to take it all the way.
You can have the best team in the world but with no passion your going nowhere but for a early shower.
Prehaps "Marshmellow Tentacles" is a Aussy, french or a jock!!!
Come on the lads

  • 161.
  • At 12:02 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Robert wrote:

Agree that this was not the best game of rugby, but who cares, Just look at the score board, that is what counts at the end of the day, we beat France and now have the chance to be the first country to win back to back World Cups.

  • 162.
  • At 12:05 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Rob wrote:

simply amazing, we are in the world cup final! so very happy. The joy is as unexpected as it is wonderful. Do not care one bit about boring rugby comments, couldnt care less what anyone else thinks about it, did greece worry about their style of football during euro 2002?

just thought id also say about comment 104, if rugby league is such an exciting and superior sport to union why is it that the union is prefered by the vast majority of the world? there must be a reason why millions apon millions of people watch union and not league. the vast majority of league is simply pick up ball, run 10 yards, get tackled, wriggle on the floor like a mental, put ball between legs, repeat. do i sound like a bit harsh and union biased? probably but at its best union is such a better game these days and league is glorified backs practice.

  • 163.
  • At 12:06 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Matt wrote:

Great performance from England. The last 10 minutes were breathtaking. But one thing I don’t get is why a player who gives needless penalties away, not once but twice, by seemingly not understanding the basic rules of the game is on the pitch? Giving the opposition what could so easily have been 3 match winning points for going in on the side should never happen for the simple reason that players who do such stupid things shouldn’t be on the pitch to start with.

  • 164.
  • At 12:09 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • eberg wrote:

Some of the comments on here a bordering on racism, why can you not enjoy your victories without belittling other nations? I was in a pub last night watching the game and to see the way people reacted was quite frankly embarrassing. You can keep the world cup as far as i am concerned, you could learn a thing or two about sporting behaviour and dignity from the French. We accept this type of behaviour in football, it seems that the English hoardes are now bringing in to rugby as well, what a shame......

  • 165.
  • At 12:19 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Jonathan Ellis wrote:

A retrospective of the overall World Cup records of every nation to have ever reached the quarter-finals, so far. Sorted in the following order:
- most wins.
- if equal on wins, most 2nd places.
- if equal on 2nd places, most 3rd places.
- if equal on 3rd places, most 4th places
- if equal on all of the above, most quarter-final appearances.
- if equal on all of the above, head-to-head matches between the nations.

1: Australia: Winners '91, '99. Runners up '03. Semis '87 (4th). Quarters, '95 and '07.

2: NZ: Winners '87. Runners up '95. Semis '91 (3rd), '99 (4th), '03 (3rd). Quarters, '07.

3: England: Winners '03. Runners up '91. Finalists '07 (yet to play). Semis '95 (4th). Quarters, '87 and '99.

(If England win in 2007, they will jump to being exactly equal with Australia's overall record, but go ahead of them on head-to-head matches by a 3-1 margin. If they lose the final to South Africa, they will remain in third - falling behind South Africa's second victory, but jumping ahead of New Zealand by virtue of having been runners-up more often. If they lose the final to Argentina, they will still leapfrog New Zealand to second place for that reason.)

4: South Africa: Winners '95. Semis '99 (3rd), '07 (yet to play). Quarters '03. Did not compete, '87 and '91.

(If South Africa win the World Cup, they will jump to second place. If they do not win, they will remain in fourth behind New Zealand, no matter whether they are runners-up or losing semi-finalists, and no matter what the result of the 3rd place play-off is.

5: France: Runners up '87, '99. Semis '95 (3rd), '03 (4th), '07. Quarters '91.

6: Wales: Semis '87 (3rd). Quarters '99, '03.

7: Scotland: Semis '91 (4th). Quarters '87, '95, '99, '03, '07

(I put Wales ahead of Scotland on account of having achieved a 3rd place to Scotland's 4th, as best result: although they have reached the semi-finals equally often and Scotland have reached more quarters.)

8: Argentina: Semis '07 (yet to play). Quarters '99.

(If Argentina win, they jump to 5th, ahead of France who have never won. If they are runners-up, they jump to 6th ahead of Wales and Scotland who have never reached a final. If they come 3rd, they jump to 7th, behind Wales but ahead of Scotland who have never come 3rd. If they lose both the semi-final and play-off, they remain in 8th.)

9: Ireland: Quarters '87, '91, '95, '03. QF play-off, '99.

=10: (Western) Samoa: Quarters '91, '95. QF play-off, '99.

=10: Fiji: Quarters '87, '07. QF play-off, '99.

12: Canada: Quarters '91.

  • 166.
  • At 12:28 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

Sorry lads but the pick and drive is going to be alot harder should the english face the springboks in the final if SA win tonight. Dont forget that SA possiabley has the most effective and well drilled forwards at this rugby world cup, not too mention that the backline of the springboks has unmatched pace on the wings compared to england. To be honest im dieing to see the match up between Old Johnny and the south african prodogy François Steyn ( SA's Johnny ) i rate that steyn will be slotting in a couple of drop goals of his own....Anyway congrats to the english for getting this far no one knew they had it in them, i certainly didnt. can wait to see you guys in the final

  • 167.
  • At 12:41 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • darran mather wrote:

wilkinson, wilkinson and bloody wilkinson,

he kicked a penalty in front of the posts and he's a genius!! big deal,

get over him - this tedious sycophancy is simply nauseating. he's a good player but he's not world class!! the forwards have dragged this team into the final and that's fact.

  • 168.
  • At 12:44 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Pete - London wrote:

Football? Hmmm.

Average percentage of dull football matches? 30-40% lets say. In rugby? 10-15%.

Rugby should be our national sport because let's face it we suck at football and will continue to do so until they cap the number foreign players in the premiership as in RU.

Oh yes and we're world cup finalists for the second consecutive tournament!

Regarding the game - what heart and guts! What determination! What a defence! Loved it. Robinson definite MOM. Sackey and Tait great!

Now remember children - always use a Jonny when you're shafting foreigners!

Next!

  • 169.
  • At 12:48 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Rob wrote:

unfair eberg (comment 162) have you ever been in cardif when wales beat england or in glasgow for england scotland? for the most part everyone wants to beat england, unfairly dislikes them and are extremely vocal about it. Of course there are idiots in england who bring shame but there are idiots everywhere in every country and although the french attitude to winning is to be admired, no one elses is. By far the most prominant racism in rugby is anti english, something all england fans have to put up with every year so it is sometimes understandbale that there is something or a responce when england win.
besides france is our old enemy who we love to hate.

  • 170.
  • At 12:55 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • chaderz wrote:

i agree with all of these results except Mike Catt. A six. His kicking was good and his denfense was spot on. At least a seven deserved for this above average performance.

  • 171.
  • At 12:58 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Rob wrote:

im sorry darren but you are so so wrong, johny wilkinson is massively world class, ignoring his kicking his tackling has always been world class, his decision making superb and his passing almost without fault. The difference between england without johny (36-0 vs SA) and with was obvious to anyone who isnt biased or jelous. I thank god he is english.

  • 172.
  • At 01:00 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Christian wrote:

finally, we're there! more by luck than judgement i sometimes feel though. just think, if jamie noon hadnt got injured, we'd still be playing with that oaf rather than the intelligent, pacy matthew tait. if jason robinson hadnt picked up his injury, sackey wouldve never got his chance and we'd still be playing with the underconfident cueto. lewis moody wasnt first choice at the start of the world cup despite being one of our biggest back-row threats, same with nick easter.

but hey. we're there. roll on the springboks. round two.

  • 173.
  • At 01:10 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • David wrote:

Incredible result! Who needs 4 years to prepare for a world cup?

Player ratings seem about right except Catt should have got about a 4 or 5. Some poor passing and kicking to touch was espeically bad, even when he did take his time to compose himself. He doesn't get over the gain line either. Hope he is dropped for Flood or Farrell.

Delighted that Robinsons last game will be in a world cup final. A great way to go.

  • 174.
  • At 01:17 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • JaneC90 wrote:

Well done England..........just fantastic! Really do not mind if we did not win the final, the fact we beat France at their home stadium is a worthy winning side for me

  • 175.
  • At 01:30 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Mark-wrights wrote:

post 167 - Wilkinson is 'not world class'?

hmm...Ok, if you say so...

You haven't really backed up your opinion with any facts, statistics, examples or even conjecture about why he's not world class.

Please could you present your case for exactly why the leading world cup points scorer is not world class?

I can't wait. Of course, I encourage any other readers to reply with their point of view. I personally can't be bothered to argue with this particular sour grape. Just intriuged to hear him rant a bit more.

  • 176.
  • At 01:30 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • mister slow worm wrote:

Further to comment 163 from Matt, I am also puzzled by the gifting of points to the opposition by some players who repeatedly infringe. It could well have cost England dearly.

Can someone please explain.

  • 177.
  • At 01:30 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • daztracey wrote:

To Hugoparis - get a life, rugby takes many forms, at times it is just a battle and this was one of them. You clearly have never played at any reasonable level

  • 178.
  • At 01:52 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • ceeb wrote:

Just read comment 93 ".. whilst it was obvious every time they ran @ England it seemed they would score...".

Complete tosh (substitute your own word from the dressing room :-)) England have won their games because every time the opposition ran at them they were completely closed down, Australia last week, France this week, and the forwards have won the ball back - did you not notice how Wilkinson's drop kick came about ?

Commentators keep asking "how did you do it ?" simple dheer bloody mindedness and a refusal to give in. How many other teams would have come back from that scrum after THE tap tackle and not conceded ?

Well done England - who cares if it's pretty it' RUGBY for God's sake .

  • 179.
  • At 02:00 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • darran mather wrote:

when was the last time 'jonny', as u union afficionados refer to him, scored a try for england?

he his primarily a kicker through the uprights. good defense, that is undeniable, courageous and deffo not a shirker but he his no genius with ball in hand.

his childhood hero is ellery hanley so he can't be all that bad i suppose.

it was a sterling performance and i the forwards were superb but is it possible for me to pick up a newspaper today without bloody wilkinson on the front!

  • 180.
  • At 02:05 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Martin wrote:

I think Joe Worsley deserves a rating of 8. His tap tackle saved a French try which could have left England with a defeat.

  • 181.
  • At 02:05 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Bill Dinning wrote:

'I am a jock.
What a wonderful result.
This game cost me a hoarse throat and a half bottle.
English supporters could demonstrate their compassion and Corinthian spirit by replacing same.

Ken Fine, Hornchurch, Essex.

  • 182.
  • At 02:15 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • graham wrote:

aussies new zealand french read it and weep boys england reaches its second final on the trot god i love being boring forever england and george

  • 183.
  • At 02:19 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Tim Harrison wrote:

WOW... still can't believe england have managed to beat 2 supposedly far superior teams in the past 2 weeks. What we lack in flair, the boys make up for in sheer grit! (cliche i know!) It leaves us with Argentina or SA in the Final... Personally, I would prefer SA (dont know why, but Argentina are too unpredictable..which is unnerving!)
Other than that, Moody had a cracking game, always throwing his body about to cause a nuisance, the rest of the forwards were very solid. Thought the tackling across the board was impressive...Worsleys tap tackle - tackle of the tournament!

  • 184.
  • At 02:26 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • EBERG wrote:

Rob Comment 169: Just when you think your argument is plausible you start talking about 'the old enemy who you love to hate'. I admire the way the French play rugby and they conducted themselves with great dignity in the wake of a defeat that arguably they did not deserve. I try and watch sport to appreciate the talent of world class atheletes and despite my nationality, i try and remain impartial where possible and will applaud fine play from any side (as do many of my countryman). You should ask yourself why England is disliked by the Celtic nations, France, Germany, Australia, South Africa the list is endless. Your over inflated patriotism is cringeworthy at best.

  • 185.
  • At 02:27 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • clive wrote:

The pride of England!!! Flags in windows, belief in our hearts and sore throats all round!
I cant take another game sat on the edge of my seat. Whoever we play next week, watch out. Remember 2003 when we knew they would win just as they ran onto the pitch? I have that belief again. I cried in 03 and i want to cry again with ellation. Come on England!!!!

  • 186.
  • At 02:56 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • JIMMYELLERY wrote:

Shaw & Moody man of the match on the field of play. The legend Will Greenwood man of the match on the tv. Outstanding insight and passion. Somebody buy Jim Rosenthal a eurostar ticket home please. He knows nothing. All he does is shout.

  • 187.
  • At 03:05 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Gwynfor Rees wrote:

Is this the spectacle that is going to attract new blood to the game...?

When England lost in the 99 final I was behind them (despite being Welsh)BUT now I'd only watch them if I had a bout of insomnia - which I'm sure that they would soon cure.

Justice will eventually prevail (I hope) and true spirit, skill and guile will prevail.

  • 188.
  • At 03:28 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Toby wrote:

Re Egberg (184).

Personally I'd have to argue that politics, history and other areas outside of rugby come into that statement.

I applaud your attitude to the game all here love, and the way the French conducted themselves after the match. However, I also agree with the basic sentiment of comment 169 by Rob.... win or lose, after the vast majority of games in which England play there is a wash of 'neutral' comments deriding our performance, our nation and our pride. Is it wrong to be overly defensive? Probably. Is it wrong to be proud of the achievement of the England side this WC? I am prepared to be convinced if you have a sufficient arguement to sway me.

Are we truly disliked by other nations? To be honest I seriously doubt that by the majority, as the majority of us in England don't genuinely dislike those of other nations. For those who do, and do so because of a sport..... I have no desire to hear from you to be honest - a sport should not inspire racism. Nothing should inspire you to tar everyone by birth based on their place of birth.

Well done England, thank you for justifying the pride of your true fans. Good luck to the Argentinians and Springboks today for a good, close game and may the best team win in the final!

  • 189.
  • At 03:30 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Michael Scallon wrote:

We would probably prefer to play Argentina in the final tactically, as their kicking game may not be as effective as it was against Scotland and Ireland. South Africa would be the trickier to play on paper with their big pack and JP and Habana on the wings, although the Argies may think of it like their destiny to win it, with Pichot's announcement before the tournament that they will win it. It sounds like a fairy story, with the "plucky underdogs" beating the "traditional superpowers" and facing the holders in the final.

  • 190.
  • At 03:31 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • kjfrazer wrote:

Boring Rugby?

Nothing more boring than losing and going home early. Must be so boring to be in another final, ay? Aussies and Kiwis must be so excited to be watching from afar!!!

As much as I'd love Argentina to whack the Boks it would be fitting for England to beat the team that inflicted such a massive defeat only a few weeks ago.

That said, with Argentina in the final, I think it would be a brilliant boost for the game. Whether to be included in the tri nations or the six nations it would be a very necessary step in the right direction.

When England took on Australia last week I knew they would win. The games coming up I just don't have a clue. And judging by the odds the bookmakers are offering I don't think they do either. My tip at the beginning was S. Africa but I really think England can pull it off - assuming there are no S.African chefs knocking around the hotel!!!

  • 191.
  • At 03:32 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Chuffedforyou wrote:

I'm Welsh and disappointed with our World Cup performances, but let's not dwell on that.. I never thought I'd ever say this, but on the last two Saturdays I have been cheering on England from my settee at home! Two magnificent displays of power, courage and endurance.. If Jonny had taken his kicks the margin of victory would have been even greater.. Your pack is awesome and I think they will be at least a match for either SA or the Pumas.. Only one change for me - start with Chuter.. GOOD LUCK ENGLAND!

  • 192.
  • At 03:34 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Simon Tucker wrote:

I thought that eberg meant the overt racism shown by the Aussie / NZ / Celtic fringe that cannot stand for the English to win anything and simply have to criticise us when we do.

England outscored France in the try stakes and should have run in two tries against Australia - just to rub in our obvious superiority.

A word for the refereeing in the last 2 games: brilliant - totally unbiased in their decision making and harsh on all trangressions.

  • 193.
  • At 03:36 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • ken wrote:

Fantastic game last night ... just one problem.... My missus 'to be' and best man aren't happy ... we are getting married next Saturday and he is as mad about the game as me!!!

  • 194.
  • At 03:41 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Andy wrote:

Rugby Union is not the game of old. Year after year it shows its growing influence of Rugby League. Only that possession doesnt change automatically after six tackles. So, it is winning your own set pieces and turnovers in set pieces and open play that maintain the possession. Thats where England succeeded over France last night. France's style exposed themselves.

After that, tries or kicks - who really cares. Two successful kicks outscores a try. You get a lot more kicking chances than try-scoring opportunities against very decent opposition. Despite all the pre-tournament talk of where the class lies in world rugby (which rarely included England), it is the grit and determination during key micro-seconds that counts.

England are in the final because their players delivered in the key moments. Last night and last Saturday. Not because they said they would, or because someone else said they would. Words mean nothing.

Hopefully, these will. Well done, fellas. Each and every one of you.

  • 195.
  • At 03:48 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Rob wrote:

dear eberg comment 184

what your doing is massivly racist. you are as bad as those english over patriotic idiots who litter our pubs and streets during world cups. you have decided that all anti english feeling is justified because all english people are over patriotic and racist. It is not very difficult to see that you are wrong, you are generalising massively and judging all of a nation on this generalisation, that is im fairly certain one deffinition of racism. every rugby fan that I know is not the kind of person you describe all english people as, they are inteligent normal people who simply enjoy the sport and love to see their country do well. the reason the celtic nations enjoy beating england is because we are their big neighbour, just like it is with england france, they are our biggest closest neighbour and there is a massive rivalry, i still shouted myself hoarse supporting them against new zealand.

your attitude is just as bad as the english you hate, grow up.

  • 196.
  • At 04:09 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

Whatever anyone says that was a great tension filled match by two sides playing strongly not willing to give an inch with no real sniff of a try save the occaisional mistake or chargedown either side could have won it - tension, grit, determination and pride shown by all 30 players

Pretty, total rugby is a myth and legend created by New Zealand and Australia, Wales tried to play pretty and the monster Fijian wings found space aplently to run into and Australia and New Zealand got beaten up on there first encounter with a truely strong pack.

England, France, Argentina and South Africa have shown good balance as the forwards do what forwards do and the backs do what backs do - when forwards try to be too creative you get hideous results like Shaws little kick last night

  • 197.
  • At 04:15 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • celtic fringe wrote:

#190 - overt racism...I think not.

It is not so much that we are racist against the English, but rather that we rankle under your overblown arrogance.

How a team that got hammered 35-0 deserves to be in the WC final is beyond me.

You are there by luck..in the last two world cups other countries have done you huge favours by knocking out stronger teams... with a fair measure of grit to give you credit.

Still on any given day I still believe you will struggle against the members of the tri-nations.

However, I do feel good for Brian Ashton. He has worked wonders with this team.

  • 198.
  • At 04:19 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • England Go For It wrote:

Best England player has to be Robinson,What is he doing after world cup ? If he no longer wants to play give him a job on staff ? Rob Andrew where is your offer ?

  • 199.
  • At 04:28 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • David wrote:

Ok, not 'beautiful' rugby, but it was good rugby. This is union, we have 15 players, 8 of whom are forwards and are there (primarally) for the vital areas of the scrum, lineout, rucks and mauls. There are seven backs who are there to do a bit of running. Quite how much of the game is run and how much is forward grunt depends on your strengths, your opponents' strengths and most importantly your opponents' weaknesses.

France had Traille at fullback, big boot, but not a natural fullback....has to be targetted, we did, we scored a 'lucky' try from it. Against south africa that tactic won't work. But against france it was good rugby.

I thought england tried to force the play a bit too much sometimes (kicking/going back into the pack looked a better option than hurling it wide with the french defence fully organised).

Both sides made significant handling errors, of which the majority were due to the defence getting up quick and putting in BIG tackles (corry's knock on a point in case).

The french played bad rugby because they tried to take on England around the pack and with kicks to Robinson (who really has matured into a quality fullback - his defensive decision making has improved massively) rather than making use of their centres (with Traille joining the line), good running line and their back row hovering on the shoulders. England made them play england's game....england (admittedly slightly fortuitously) won.

  • 200.
  • At 04:35 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Tostao wrote:

As a proud Irishman, I offer wholehearted congratulation to England on a supreme effort to get to another WC Final. Having showed little or no form in the last 4 years, they have happened upon a winning formula at exactly the right time, something Ireland failed spectacularly to do. Full credit to Ashton and crew. I have to agree with those contributors who criticized the unbalanced Setanta Sports coverage. Frankly it was an embarrassment, so much so, that I emailed them a flavour of the comments posted here. Those paying for the service should do likewise.

  • 201.
  • At 04:42 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • CHARLES wrote:

Wilko will be our downfall,fair enough the drop goal was good but 3 from 8, a world class performance? I dont think so, our forwards are good enough but our backs dont have enough to worry other teams and when we dont have a good goal kicker theres not a chance we will win the world cup

  • 202.
  • At 04:43 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Andy wrote:

It has been interesting watching recent games on the French public TV channel, TF1 (for which I am very grateful). The adverts around the games give an indication of what may be expected. One of the French backs in a shampoo advert diving over the line with glossy hair perfectly in place (anyone who has played in the forwards will know where I am coming from). An advert with Zinadine Zidane bringing aspects of the 'beautiful games' into the three-quarters. I love French culture, and am fortunate enough to be able to understand the TF1 commentary (which I found to be fair and unbiased - the third French penalty being inexplicable, for example).

If England had the players to play a different kind of game that would win matches, then why wouldnt they? They play with what they have 'in the moment'.

And that is getting less and less. Like football, English rugby has become a world stage. I'd be interested if someone could tell me know how many of the Guinness Premiership half-backs qualify for the England team?

I'm happy that the England players 'Do what they say on the tin' and would be if they advertised work-benches, Loctite and WD40.

'Cos the main TF1 advert is about a fly-half kicking the ball through the posts of the Eiffel Tower. From a fairly close position.

  • 203.
  • At 04:52 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • David wrote:

Sam Tilley (comment 64) wrote:

"I'm sorry, but isn't it the most annoying thing that england only pull it out of the bag when it matters?"

LOL.....That is the most nonsensical tripe. Yeah, it would be great if England played brilliantly in every single match. But if all you can do is complain that they do it when it really counts.....?????....I'm lost for words.

Perhaps, as a "rugby lover" you should move to a land where they play fantastic rugby all the time.....*except* when it really matters....ummmm, at the moment that would be somewhere with more sheep than people.

  • 204.
  • At 05:05 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Rob wrote:

celtic fringe (comment 197) you say we have overblown arrogance and therefore you are not racist? it is obvious how stupid you sound - 'im not racist because you are all arrogant idiots' its embarresing that you actualy think your justified. lets get this straight, there are a lot of english idiots, a lot, but there are a lot of idiots everywhere and you are clearly one of them.

Anyway what arrogance? the whole nation thought we had no chance, we thought of ourselves as massive underdogs, every english expert thought we would lose against australia and could have lost to either samoa or tonga, so i say again, what arrogance????? im not sure if you know but arrogance means you think you are better than you are, in the past 2 games england have been better than we thought they were. isnt that the opposite?

  • 205.
  • At 05:10 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • justin wrote:

Awesome awesome it's still baffling we are in another world cup final after our perfomances in the last 2 years. Emotinal night. I think Joe Worsley deserves an 8 considering he is only reason we are in the final. I don't think Beauxis was the best player on the pitch before he left. Either Robinsion or Ellisade. Also Ellisade reverse pass from the edge of the touchline was genius i never seen anything like in my life. Also Heymans had a good game i thought, but we won that's all that matters. Heading to the bar to watch what i think will be quite an awesome match. Come you Argies although SA by 7 in feel.

  • 206.
  • At 05:21 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Tim Harrison wrote:

With all that has gone on this world cup, i would like to congratulate the smaller nations... for giving us some great upsets and playing some really attractive rugby. throwing the ball about and running from your own 22 is great to watch. But, at the end of the day England are in the final...and got there by playing percentage rugby, and scoring more than their opposition. thats how you win... noone remembers the losers...there is no engraving on the trophy for 2nd,3rd or 4th place!

  • 207.
  • At 05:27 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • England Supporter wrote:

Last nights match. Not pretty, but that wasn't what we wanted was it?

I was sceptical of England when France kicked-off last nights match. I feel ashamed to have now. Lewsey's try after only 2 or so minutes made my heart leap. There were moments were the English defense was continually battered I was thinking...'Can we do this?'.

I find it absolutely incredible that a team written off at the start of this World Cup can make such a come back, such a fight with grit and determination of men possessed. They are truely a symbol of British sporting achievement. I have no doubt, whatever the outcome of the final next Saturday, that we will still all remember the team that never give up, and take criticism in their darkest hours, yet still come out and prove that British bulldog spirit prevails.

Good luck and lets hope that Trophy is going to be historic!

  • 208.
  • At 05:30 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Polemic wrote:

Ugly!...Give me ugly any day of the week.
Her indoors is ugly...But I love her to bits.
Beauty has got nothing to do with the packaging; its what's inside that counts.
England fronted-up when it mattered. Passion; bloody-mindedness; 'Mine is but to do or die'; discipline; commitment, these are but some of their qualities.
Oz/Nz, we know you have these qualities in spades but you didn't bring them with you.
I leave you with the thought, 'The team is greater than the sum of its parts'.

England, I love you (in the nice'est possible way). I shall be ever proud of you, and proud of the soil upon which I tread.

  • 209.
  • At 05:39 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • JAMIE MORRIS wrote:

WOW THESE GUYS THROUGH EVERYTHING THROUGH CRITICISM PAIN HURT LOSEING CONSTANTLY THEY HAVE COME THROUGH WITH PRIDE GRACE DIGNITY IMAGINE HOW GOOD THE ENGLAND TEAM IS GONNA BE IN THE NEXT WORLD CUP WITH ALL THE GREAT YOUNGSTERS WE HAVE IF THESE OLD GUYS CAN DO THIS

  • 210.
  • At 06:05 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Simon Tucker wrote:

I think CHARLES has got it wrong: Wilkinson's kicking last night fired when it was needed in the last 10 minutes. Clearly if he had kicked all his goals we would have not had such a nerve-wracking night - but the game would have also lost something if he had. However, the rest of his game was just awesome in both attack and defence - like the rest of the team in fact.

I am still concerned at the denigration of England's running and passing: we ran and passed every bit as much as either Australia or France and we created more scoring opportunities than either of those teams and took more of them - which is why we beat them both.

England can run and pass and score tries and look good whilst doing it (cf the 50 points we put over against Wales) in the same way that France, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand do when the opposition isn't good enough or on their game on the day. The difference is that we can also grind out a result when we have to and we are capable of preventing others from playing a loose and free-flowing game because of our defensive prowess. It is all a part of the game.

  • 211.
  • At 06:20 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Giles Damedog wrote:

Well done to all the chaps over there in France. It's been a splendid tournament and (Sir) Brian's boys should definately retain OUR trophy. Hooray! I think I should also give a mention to our nations second team in the soccer, they did well as well so I'm told. Three cheers.

  • 212.
  • At 06:43 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • spooner wrote:

197 celtic whinge:
I just don't know where to start with you.
So I won't bother, you're not worth it!

  • 213.
  • At 06:55 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Sminns wrote:

A wonderful game in my book! Agree with most ratings but Pieter de Villiers really did not match up and was having a torrid time of it. Jason is sooo classy. Come on England!!!!!

  • 214.
  • At 06:55 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • EBERG wrote:

Comment 195.

Dear Rob,

If you feel that this forum is the place to vent your anger then please do so. Though i feel it is normal for people to have a difference of opinion, i would not insult you for having a different one to me. I will continue to try and watch sport impartially but hope to high heaven for a decent game before this world cup ends. You must admit, it would be good to see the ball move through the hands once in a while, and not rely on the boot of 1 guy, who lets be honest, doesn't look fully fit. Sorry if you are upset.

  • 215.
  • At 06:56 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Jono wrote:

I disagree with Charles aswell because Wilki is a Gr8 player and he just had a bad day. He could have done better but without him were dead!! Most of his attempts were pretty darn hard and one hit the post. I mean how unlucky is that??? Robinson rocked as usual. That run in the second half was wicked awesome. I say hes our best player and hes are best chance 2 win. It would be brill if Argentina beat S.A cause if we play S.A were gonna get a woopin. Theres my oppinions.

  • 216.
  • At 06:57 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • jez wrote:

picture the scene.

world cup semi againts the garlic munchers and guess where i am?
in paris?no

down the pub with the lads?no

sat at home watching the 42"plasma?no

at the wifes best friends WEDDING in some ancient hall in nottingham with no tv.not a problem me thinks got orange telly on the mobile!type it
in 3g out of range!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
plan z.one of the boys has brought his
18 year old 4"tv with no sound and another has his dab radio!


picture the scene around 50 rather drunk men in morning suits jumping around like nutters!

sport priceless

see tou in paris married or not!!!!

  • 217.
  • At 07:09 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

hi

  • 218.
  • At 07:33 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • perfidiousAlbion wrote:

BORING, BORING, BORING ....

That must have been the most boring game ever (with the possible exception of Scotland v Italy).

Only the Fijians (and a fella from Zimbabwe playing for the Yanks) have dared to play attacking rugby with ball in hand. ALL the rest have caught the English disease of kicking into the opponents half and then digging the trenches.

Even the French!

Dommage!

I suppose professionalism had to lead to this ...

... pity. I used to like rugby ...

  • 219.
  • At 07:35 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Polar Bear wrote:

why was jason robinson the best player for England??

Gommarsall was the best player on the pitch by far

equally why betsen such a high rating for france??

he did hardly anything

and all dallaglio did was nearly give away a penalty!!!

  • 220.
  • At 07:52 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • kjfrazer wrote:

re 187

Mr Rees, England may send you to sleep but surely it's your own team that gives you nightmares. And let's be honest...that ain't gonna change for some time.

  • 221.
  • At 07:52 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Colm wrote:

England play boring rugby!they don't allow other teams to play!They have no skill, just strengh!

  • 222.
  • At 08:22 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Jon Hughes (welshy) wrote:

Boring England

I may be ever so slightly biased (being a Welshman) but how dull are england to watch! I like to watch entertaining ball in hand attacking rugby, not Johnny Wilkinson's kicking foot.

I also love the way that everyone now thinks that England are topping the world standard of rugby!

Let me tell you something....NO YOU ARE NOT . Fundamentals need to be changed! A reliance on the boot of jonny is not good enough. Where has the entertaining rugby gone?!

Assuming the springboks beat the argies, i hope the score is double that in the group stage!! 72 - 0 would be nice (think it was 36 - 0, apologies if i am wrong!).

For your sake england, i hope you get destroyed so maybe a major change to British Rugby can happen!

Unlucky Wales! (Yes i accept that we got the fundamentals wrong too, and sacking the coach wont do anything.... we need to go much higher, and clear the whole board!)

Rant over!

Come on Argies!

  • 223.
  • At 08:23 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Adam Laughton wrote:

What an incredible night-as people said, this game would go down in IRB Rugby World Cup history. England have played well but should be worried as two suprise packages of this tournament.

Argentina have been phenomanal this last few games but 'The Pumas' should find the South Africa too hot to handle. They haven't played any big teams apart from Australia who they struggled against and Ireland who were largely out of the form they though they can produce.

South Africa had two strong but underatted southern hemisphere teams (Tonga and Samoa) and England plus another strong underrated team from Australasia in the quarter finals.(Figi)

I have always thought that South Africa will win the Wold Cup, and I still do, but after what Australia and France saw from England (In perticular their forwards) you never know. It'll be an intresting game be it Aregentina or South Africa facing England on Saturday.

  • 224.
  • At 09:08 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • fox wrote:

Beauxis a 7??!! Were you watching a different game? Surely a 4 at best.

  • 225.
  • At 09:20 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • graham wilde wrote:

The people saying that this wasn't a good game of rugby or those that decry England's style of play make me smile.

It has become a regular soundbite from Australians and Kiwis over the years and it's turning into a ridiculous excuse for their own shortcomings.

David Campese, for example, was very very outspoken and the first in the queue to make thse sort of accusations, yet nobody reminds him of the despicable offside tackle which robbed England of a try in the 1991 Final.

Also, if you ask the great All Blacks of the past, I doubt you would hear any of them moaning about the opposition playing negative rugby. These players, and I'm talking about the Colin Meads, Andy Haydens, Grant Battys and Sid Goings of this world, would win the game first and then start ripping through the opposition. New Zealand's game plan against France was farcical. Mentally, there were saying to themeslves, we cannot win this by a drop-goal. It's a joke, and it's squarely on them.

The game of Rugby Union has moved, and England can play the sort of game which makes try scoring difficult. It's the same thing that happened in football.

People that don't want phyiscal contact in football support Arsenal. That's fine if you want to see artistry on the field for 80 minutes, but ask the Kiwis whose shoes they'd rather be in now?

  • 226.
  • At 10:16 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • darran mather wrote:

ive been watching robinson since he was 17 and even though the english media appear obsessed with the average wilkinson the man who can really light up a stadium is the iconic robinson.

my game is league but when union is played with momentum and pace it can be a truly magnificent spectacle. it's a real pity that such talented players in this world cup have not been allowed to play in this fashion.

i suspect, as they did on sat, that robinson will be allowed to run onto the pitch on his own before the whole team. a fitting tribute by his team-mates to a player who IMO transformed english rugby. he gave twickenham something they had never seen before and it will be a very, very sad moment when the final whistle is blown. im sure many will be figthing back the tears. if they win it would be amazing if robinson was allowed to pick up the trophy. now that would be special

  • 227.
  • At 10:17 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • gabes wrote:

agree with the ratings, what a game! watched it in france next to the Eiffel Tower and it was amazing!

To all those who say england play boring rugby: england, like any other team, make decisions that will score them points and will win them the match. taking high risks and show-boating are sometimes appropriate but to sanction it over doing the former is irresponsible and undermines your teammates. It was an ugly match, but england played well, refused to give up and scored points when it mattered which is how they won. I might understand belittling opposing teams when they're doing badly, but to insult their game when they're winning matches shows ignorance and jealousy. And it seems people who make these comments (whose teams, funnily enough, aren't in the competition anymore) speak without worrying about their own hypocrisy.

  • 228.
  • At 10:46 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Geoff wrote:

Sure Johnny Wilkinson's kicking is important but I think his tackle on Fabien Pelous was one of the critical moments of the game, it must have upset their plans to bring on Chabal so early. I think Andy Gomershall is also very important in dictating the way the game goes, great distribution and usually there before the back row. I hope that Josh Lewsey recovers OK - excellent player, great commitment.

  • 229.
  • At 10:47 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • gabes wrote:

to eberg (post 164):

"you could learn a thing or two about sporting behaviour and dignity from the French"

You must be joking! I watched the match in Paris, amidst a mass of French people! The only thing I learnt is that France is a proud rugby nation, and is just as competitive as England. They shouted expletives at the screen when England were in possession, they booed everytime Wilkinson lined up a penalty, they laughed when Lewsey hobbled off injured.

Mate you're on another planet. Sorry you're disillusioned but rugby's not a sport without competition. If you're too wet to deal with that then go and watch some synchronised swimming.

  • 230.
  • At 10:48 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Carl wrote:

there is no way england deserved to win they played poorly and wilkinson should have kicked better but the last minutes are what count and he did it so who can complain. Come on england. Lets win this

  • 231.
  • At 12:46 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Dan wrote:

Great result from England with a strong, resolute performance. Agree with the ratings although i thought Sackey was worth more than a 6? Bring on the final.

  • 232.
  • At 01:24 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • JonnyS wrote:

South Africa will struggle to match England at the drop goal scenario, Butch James is not that type of fly half, Steyn doesn't appear to have the bottle which only leaves Montgomery out of position. Plus Moody will be on all 3 of them so Jonny may boot us to a massive underdog win. Game On

  • 233.
  • At 02:56 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Matt Scanlan wrote:

Fantastic England! But I always knew you could do it, despite all the pre-match guff from the soothsayers and doom-mongerers. After all, about two thirds of our team and bench were World Cup medal winners. How many medal winners did the French have? Ashton has been wise in his team selections, as experience is so invaluable. And as for all that southern hemisphere moaning about not being pretty; what would they prefer, pretty rugby or the World Cup? I think we all know the answer.
Yes we can see off South Africa next weekend, as people seem to have forgotten that we beat them last November. The reason they've beaten us since is - 1) we haven't fielded our top players, 2) we didn't have Wilko, and 3) two of those games were in their own back yard. And although they beat us a month ago, we were without our Captain, we lost Robinson to a hamstring injury, we didn't have Wilko and Catt was in the wrong position - hence our kicking gane was not good, and we didn't play Gomarsall, consequently the ball distribution was far too slow; we also played Andy Farrell (sorry Andy) who has never really made the transition to the Union game. But all of that has now been changed: the boys are now happy, confident, and most importantly,
they are now playing as a team. Infact, they are now playing their best rugby since the last World Cup,
and most of them have already beaten a South African side that has included many of the players who will be playing next Saturday. So boys, BELIEVE, and we'll see you in Leicester Square - again.

  • 234.
  • At 04:27 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • celtic fringe wrote:

#204

sorry you felt so insulted by my comment. I guess I am an idiot for pointing out the arrogance and stupidity of "some" English fans. You and I do appear to agree that there are idiots everywhere...including in the Celtic fringe.

and #212

Sorry you felt I was whinging..Did you actually read the rest of what I said....I did commend English grit and the work of Brian Ashton....

however, you seem unable to be as gracious in victory as the team that you support....maybe that is why I react to "overblown arrogance."

  • 235.
  • At 05:10 AM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Eddie wrote:

Well done England, your played your typical rugby and won.

What i fathom to understand is all this hype about England being dominant, i am a kiwi and i love watching Rugby, as it is played today by the SH teams, it is far more exiting from a spectators view, i have played rugby at a reasonable level and that is the style that is taught at home, and by the results you can see that it works exceedingly well, most of the time, just read the overall statistics of New Zealand rugby over any other country, the only contenders that come close are South Africa and Australia,

All Blacks win ratio vs rest of the world!

Against - Played - Won - Lost - Drawn - %
Australia - 128 - 85 - 38 - 5 - 66.40
South Africa - 72 - 40 - 29 - 3 - 55.55
France - 46 - 34 - 11 - 1 - 73.91
England - 29 - 22 - 6 - 1 - 75.86
Scotland - 26 - 24 - 0 - 2 - 92.31
Wales - 23 - 20 - 3 - 0 - 86.96
Ireland - 20 - 19 - 0 - 1 - 95.00
Argentina - 13 - 12 - 0 - 1 - 92.31

I am disappointed with the result in the quarter finals, but we did not play our natural game against France, we, to France's credit they rattled us and we were not mentally prepared for that, the All Blacks have the most successful win ratio of any team in the world in any sport. The only reason why i posted that was because i take exception to all the garbage that has been lobbied against a team that has been incredibly successful over the last few years, about how rubbish they are.

Yes if one of our players did take a drop goal and we won the quarter as a kiwi we would have taken it, but i guarantee if Rugby once again turns into that farce of a sport where there is no flair then i will not be watching it. Funds will dry up, and the professionalism of the sport will be in alot of trouble, TV rights will not be a lucrative as the majority of the public will not watch except for those few die hard rugby fanatics,

Rugby needs the SH teams and their style and flair of rugby in order to last in the long term financially and from a spectators view, it would be a very sad day if that was ever to happen.

Well done England but i hope SA wins on the day not because i want SA to win but because i want Rugby to win.

  • 236.
  • At 01:34 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Millasur wrote:

Fantastic, well done England.

The "england" hating is hilarious. France do tend to play expansive rugby, with some power up front in the forwards. What did they try to do against England?! Terrority and kicking, the same way England play - yet no one cries about France playing boring rugby.

And to all the people complaining about the boring ness - I'm sure any of the players from either side would probably laugh in your face (or more likely, punch you in the face.) Both sides players gave it their all, as I'm sure al the players do, and as everyone keeps mentioning - the 'winners' are stil in the competition.

And to the bitter one who said England only got through by beating substandard teams - beating Australia in two successive world cups? They're a substandard team now are they?! Stop ignoring of facts to make ridiculous statements. NZ lost to France this world cup -
In 2003 semis, NZ lost to Australia, and France lost to England.

  • 237.
  • At 03:25 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • James wrote:

There seems to be a regular misconception from posters to this blog that forward play is unskilful and that backs are the only ones who bring skill to the game. This is, of course, nonsense, as anyone who has played in the pack, and particularly the front five, can confirm. Scrummaging is both skilful and very technical, hence the overpowering of the Australian front row, the lineout requires pinpoint accuracy and split second timing, hence South Africa's dominance of the lineout last night, and rucking and mauling are an art in their own right. Alright, so I'm an ex-second row forward, but to me England's pack has been a thing of beauty over the last few weeks.
That said, I'm sure that Brian Ashton and his team would rather have won scoring lots of tries and running the opposition ragged, but remember that this is a side that was written off before the tournament (and where are the posters who said that England should forget about 2007 and blood youngsters for 2011?)and who were down and out just five weeks ago. This group of players dug deep, found a style that suited the resources that they had available to them and refused ever to give up. I'm sorry for all the sevens fans on here who wanted to see an endless procession of tries, but rugby union isn't always like that and you can't expect a side, any side, to simply lie down for the sake of the alleged aesthetics of the game. England may not have been pretty but they have been intelligent, they have been dogged, they have been magnificent in the forwards and I, and many other Englishmen, am very, very proud of them.

  • 238.
  • At 03:26 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Sam wrote:

These are very generous ratings for England Orlo. I do agree with the French ratings.

It was all Wilkinson (10). The rest of the English Squad were playing the same quality of rugby we've seen since last month.

Again, what does it matter now, England's in the finals!

  • 239.
  • At 04:11 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Diarmid wrote:

The ratings given to the French players bear absolutely no resemblance to the reality of what happened on the pitch. I'd tend to agree with your England player ratings but come on, Julien Bonnaire was by far the stand out player in the French team on Saturday night and you've given him a six.

You've given a good deal of thought to rating the English players and have basically applied EA Rugby 2008 ratings for every French player. Betsen blew a 5-1 overlap and missed some tackles and you've given him an 8, basically out of respect for the player that he is whereas Bonnaire didn't put a foot wrong for 80 minutes and played out of his skin taking the vast majority of lineout ball and setting up Clerc (the stand out French back whom you've given 6/10) with a deft touch to keep the ball in play.

Put a bit more effort into your analysis in future, we know how good these players are, the ratings are supposed to reflect how good they were on the night and your France player ratings are totally out.

  • 240.
  • At 07:08 PM on 15 Oct 2007,
  • Neil wrote:

So, Mark, according to you the England starting XV is worth 105 points compared to the SA starting XV's 101. In six positions you rate English players higher than South Africans and you rate only four South Africans as better than their English counterparts. Should be a walkover for England, then?

  • 241.
  • At 01:10 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • anon wrote:

Millasur...


you can't compare teams performances in 2003 to the same teams today...otherwise we could just have awarded the WC to England and done away with a months worth of competition.

That being said, it can be argued that Australia is a team in decline...they had a pool with Canada, Japan and Wales...England probably had a tougher pool which may have contributed to their gelling as a team.

  • 242.
  • At 03:10 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Brett wrote:

Millasur...

Its all well and good comparing your teams Rugby skills in 2003, but you failed to mention what happened in between 2004 and 2007 after the WC, you have to be completely mad to think that England are the best team in the world, just look at the stats especially between 2004 and 2007, what you seem to be saying is that all the games in between the WC do not mean anything!!

I tell you what i would much rather have a team that wins consistently that a few times every 4 years

But on another note congrats to England, they played to their strengths and won on the day,

  • 243.
  • At 10:33 AM on 16 Oct 2007,
  • Toddie wrote:

Oh come on 235. Yes, it is generally acknowledged by the rest of the rugby world that the ABs are the best rugby team, except when it comes to winning the RWC which entitles one to justifiably claim that they are the best. If you want to make this claim, beat the other teams and win the trophy. Stop this nonsense about entertaining rugby - would you prefer your team to be winners or entertainers?
You Kiwis have a triumphalist soccer mentality, gloating in victory (I was with the Lions in 2005), ungracious in defeat (now!) and worried about the commercial side ("funds will dry up"). Go and watch some soccer before the world's respect for NZ rugby dries up.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external internet sites