Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Rugby World Cup Final 2019 Eng vs S Africa

1…2021232526…28

Comments

  • #662
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    JoeyDoh wrote: »
    Did Frans Steyn get on?

    Towards the end


  • #663
    Dog Murphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 82 ✭✭Dog Murphy


    Exclamation Marc wrote: »
    In fairness, Aki rolled right back and said he liked it without reading it.

    Vunipola doubled down. Whether you buy or accept the excuse, it was still worldly different.

    And if you believe that's true then you'll believe anything.


  • #664
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    We will never have the sheer bulk of player nor the depth of squad to do what South Africa can. Their template is utterly useless to us.


  • #665
    Always Tired
    Closed Accounts Posts: 945 ✭✭✭Always Tired


    Epic choke job, plain and simple. England looked nervy from the very start and played right into SA's style of play. Couldn't handle the pressure.

    To beat the All Blacks and then fail to even score a try in the final is just ridiculous. Every other head coach in the final 4 teams is leaving, I don't see how England's can stay on after that showing, it was pathetic.


  • #666
    Exclamation Marc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,451 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    Dog Murphy wrote: »
    And if you believe that's true then you'll believe anything.

    I don't. As I said in my post, buying or believing it is another thing but at least he didn't go all in on what he said and just keep reiterating himself.


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    Naggdefy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭Naggdefy


    awec wrote: »
    As you say, SA game plan is not unlike Ireland's at all, but they have a pack capable of doing it at the very highest levels and we do not.

    Even Ireland at their peak last year would not be able to dominate like SA did today. England were minced.

    No we've won the scrum battle but never would we get 5 or so penalties off it.

    The genetics are in SA favour. They love playing England too, bit of a history since a certain war 1898-1901.


  • #668
    Cork Boy 53
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,829 ✭✭✭Cork Boy 53


    Naggdefy wrote: »
    Also SA never lost a final.

    They have not conceded a try in a WC final either.


  • #669
    SharpshooterTom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭SharpshooterTom


    Always Tired wrote: »
    Epic choke job, plain and simple. England looked nervy from the very start and played right into SA's style of play. Couldn't handle the pressure.

    To beat the All Blacks and then fail to even score a try in the final is just ridiculous. Every other head coach in the final 4 teams is leaving, I don't see how England's can stay on after that showing, it was pathetic.

    Couldn't live with the favourites tag after beating New Zealand. They were perfect against the all blacks, most complete performance you can get and it was only going in one direction after and that was down.

    Amazing to think the Boks could have easily lost the semi against Wales, really was a coin toss heading into the last 10 minutes, thankfully the right team got to the final otherwise there wouldn't have been a contest.


  • #670
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,089 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Former Former wrote: »
    We will never have the sheer bulk of player nor the depth of squad to do what South Africa can. Their template is utterly useless to us.

    We've used their template, it worked for us to a point, but as you say we don't have the players to deliver it to the same level as they do.


  • #671
    Naggdefy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭Naggdefy


    Former Former wrote: »
    We will never have the sheer bulk of player nor the depth of squad to do what South Africa can. Their template is utterly useless to us.

    Well that's been the thing for years, not SA's power, New Zealand's precision, pace and skill. Once in a generation we get a pack that can compete with the best. We were all hoping this time we had, Furlong, Healy, Leavy, a last WC out of SOB 2019, Henderson get consistency.

    As you say maybe we'll never have a pack at that SA level. Still England were 920 kgs to their 900. I know weight isn't power, technique.


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    Naggdefy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭Naggdefy


    We couldn't handle the mantle of top dog after Nov 2018. Heavy is the head that wears the crown and all that.

    Underdogs is a great position in sport, life.


  • #673
    SharpshooterTom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭SharpshooterTom


    England went to number 1 in the world prior to the match didn't they?

    Kiss of death for Wales Ireland and England.


  • #674
    CrabRevolution
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,962 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    Naggdefy wrote: »
    SA most successful WC team 3/7. NZ 3/9.

    That's a serious stat.


    That's like saying Greece are the most successful team in the European Championship because they've won 1 in 4 tournaments they've qualified for.


  • #675
    nacho libre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,620 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    Naggdefy wrote: »
    We couldn't handle the mantle of top dog after Nov 2018. Heavy is the head that wears the crown and all that.

    Underdogs is a great position in sport, life.

    To be honest i think those results were misleading/meaningless as we were beating teams in transition for the World Cup. As, aside from Leavy, we just don't have the players to gain parity in the physical exchanges up front.

    The truth is we can't beat the top teams at their best.

    We hear different excuses offered each World Cup as to why we fall short, but that is the reality of the situation.


  • #676
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Naggdefy wrote: »
    SA most successful WC team 3/7. NZ 3/9.

    That's a serious stat.

    How come they didn't play in two of them?

    Just googled, their support of apartheid


  • #677
    PTH2009
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,404 ✭✭✭✭PTH2009


    Congrats to South Africa

    Didnt expect them to win that well and to think we were hoping to play them ha


  • #678
    KWAG2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 834 ✭✭✭KWAG2019


    awec wrote: »
    As you say, SA game plan is not unlike Ireland's at all, but they have a pack capable of doing it at the very highest levels and we do not.

    Even Ireland at their peak last year would not be able to dominate like SA did today. England were minced.

    Thread. And a few more besides.


  • #679
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,253 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Deleted User wrote: »
    How come they didn't play in two of them?

    Banned from international in 87 and 91 for apartheid


  • #680
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,728 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    Utah_Saint wrote: »
    I feel disappointed for England...they've clearly been the best team in 2019. SA only decided to play rugby in this final

    :pac:


  • #681
    nacho libre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,620 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    Deleted User wrote: »
    How come they didn't play in two of them?

    Apartheid


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    Naggdefy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭Naggdefy


    CrabRevolution wrote: »
    That's like saying Greece are the most successful team in the European Championship because they've won 1 in 4 tournaments they've qualified for.

    Not even close. Ridiculous comparison. SA would have 'qualified' for the first 2 without Apartheid. Who's to say they would have won at least another out of those 2.


  • #683
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,728 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    nacho libre wrote: »
    To be honest i think those results were misleading/meaningless as we were beating teams in transition for the World Cup. As, aside from Leavy, we just don't have the players to gain parity in the physical exchanges up front.

    The truth is we can't beat the top teams at their best.

    We hear different excuses offered each World Cup as to why we fall short, but that is the reality of the situation.

    I think that' a bit unfair. Our team peaked in 2018. We don't have the resources to maintain that level for long periods. The timing didn't work in our favour but we were very impressive with that Grand Slam in 2018 and the wins over Australia and New Zealand. We beat south Africa 19 points to 3 in Lansdowne road in November 2017.


  • #684
    MadYaker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,347 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    Soth Africa were misfiring a bit back in 2017 though, Rassie has whipped them into shape.


  • #685
    CrabRevolution
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,962 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    Naggdefy wrote: »
    Not even close. Ridiculous comparison. SA would have 'qualified' for the first 2 without Apartheid. Who's to say they would have won at least another out of those 2.


    Being banned for Apartheid is tantamount to not qualifying.


  • #686
    votecounts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,635 ✭✭✭votecounts


    Delighted thats Erasmus and Springsbok won, deserved it fully and also to wipe the smirk off Farrells face, priceless:D


  • #687
    P.Walnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,457 ✭✭✭P.Walnuts


    CrabRevolution wrote: »
    Being banned for Apartheid is tantamount to not qualifying.

    It really isn't.

    The comparison you are trying to make is absurd


  • #688
    Naggdefy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭Naggdefy


    CrabRevolution wrote: »
    Being banned for Apartheid is tantamount to not qualifying.

    You must be very young or silly trying to pursue such a ridiculous argument here. Good luck with it!


  • #689
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,385 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Two massive turning points

    Sinkler going off showed the weakness in England's front row cover. No scrum, no win. Especially against the Boks

    Missing that kick, to bring it to a 3 point game, effectively ended England's challenge.
    The Boks were, realistically, the worst team for England in the final. Big bruisers who can play the same game as England. England may have the better backline but when the opposition can effectively kill your "bash 10 metres and immediately release the backs" gameplan, and turn your scrum? No hope.
    It all worked out perfectly for the Boks and, while it was not a great tournament, it was a great final.

    Highlights of the Tournament were:
    Boks are back, obviously
    Japan. of course
    Uruguay, great showing from them
    Russia, parachuted in and had a very admirable showing.

    Lowpoints:
    Ireland
    Cancelled games
    Fiji
    Canada


  • #690
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,253 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Naggdefy wrote: »
    You must be very young or silly trying to pursue such a ridiculous argument here. Good luck with it!


    The only explanation is that everything must be taken into consideration to qualify. Most important is ability but also the stance the rugby board took. Also maybe if your not in you can't win. But doesn't stack up.


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    A2LUE42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭A2LUE42


    You can add Scotland to the low points, very poor world cup from them.


Advertisement