nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Rugby World Cup Final 2019 Eng vs S Africa

ednwireland

here it is let's go

Clive Woodward on ITV commentary we've all been here (well brian o'Driscoll hasn't but let's not mention that )

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

LuckyLloyd

Delighted for Rassie, a very special rugby man and a real talent. Two remarkable turnarounds at club and International level during the World Cup cycle.

realhorrorshow

A2LUE42 wrote: »

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

Argentina and the USA too.

lawred2

I wasn't overwhelmed by the world cup to be honest.. enjoyed a few games. With the schedule, missed more than I saw. Saw a few good games.

Ireland being so flat from early on didn't help either.

I'd give it a 4/10

And half of that is because I really enjoyed the final.

AbusesToilets

Some of the poor refereeing performances and the impact they had, took away some of the gloss. By all rights Fiji ought to have qualified. I know they got beaten by Uruguay, which was a fantastic game, but they would've beaten Aus and Wales if the refereeing had been to a higher standard.

Mad_maxx

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.

They wouldn't have beaten new Zealand in 87 or Australia in 91

FrancieBrady

Mad_maxx wrote: »

They wouldn't have beaten new Zealand in 87 or Australia in 91

A few hours ago most people would have said they 'wouldn't have beaten England'.

Don't be silly, you can't know that.

walshb

Mad_maxx wrote: »

They wouldn't have beaten new Zealand in 87 or Australia in 91

Personally I think the Aussies of 1991 were the strongest team of all the world cups, at that time..they were so strong in 1991..

Digifriendly

walshb wrote: »

Personally I think the Aussies of 1991 were the strongest team of all the world cups, at that time..they were so strong in 1991..

Possibly 1999 team was close. Far cry from now.

Letwin_Larry

well done Sth. Africa!

in many ways the match reflects what's happening in their respective countries.
one trying desperately, to forgive the wrongs of the past, and to create a decent optimistic future for themselves.

the other wallowing and festering in the past glories, bickering and squabbling amongst themselves, unable to look to the future.

Jacovs

Squidgy Black

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

well done Sth. Africa!

in many ways the match reflects what's happening in their respective countries.
one trying desperately, to forgive the wrongs of the past, and to create a decent optimistic future for themselves.

the other wallowing and festering in the past glories, bickering and squabbling amongst themselves, unable to look to the future.

.... You must not pay much attention to the news if you think that's what's happening in South Africa these days.

castor 1

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Surely one of the highlights has to be England’s demolition of the All Blacks !

boetstark

Jacovs wrote: »

All credit to the team in fairness. Hope they heard me shouting on the couch though.

Thank you. Will enjoy it again monday in work.

BAIE GELUK aan die Springbokke en Suid Afrika boet. Ek is trots om hulle te ondersteun. Kurt Darren op my stereo ðŸºðŸºðŸºðŸºðŸºðŸºðŸºðŸ˜႒

fryup

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

well done Sth. Africa!

in many ways the match reflects what's happening in their respective countries.
one trying desperately, to forgive the wrongs of the past, and to create a decent optimistic future for themselves.

the other wallowing and festering in the past glories, bickering and squabbling amongst themselves, unable to look to the future.

utter bollocks !

RugbyLover123

How many of that Boks team make it into the 15 from ‘07?

1. Beast
8. Vermualan
10. Pollard
14. kolbe

Could make a case for PSDT over Juan Smith

Squidgy Black

RugbyLover123 wrote: »

How many of that Boks team make it into the 15 from ‘07?

1. Beast
8. Vermualan
10. Pollard
14. kolbe

Could make a case for PSDT over Juan Smith

I'd take De Allende over 2007 Steyn at 12, De Allende has been one of the best inside centres this year.

I think Faf vs Du Preez is a tight battle too but Du Preez probably nudges it.

Aidric

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Some backstory for Kolisi all the same, superb role model.

Sure is. I found myself feeling very emotional listening to his post match interview, such humility given what he has achieved.

Kermit.de.frog

South Africa may have won the game but England won the hearts.

RugbyLover123

Squidgy Black wrote: »

I'd take De Allende over 2007 Steyn at 12, De Allende has been one of the best inside centres this year.

I think Faf vs Du Preez is a tight battle too but Du Preez probably nudges it.

Yeah De Allende is probably a fair call. Strange he was out of favour for a while last year, always thought he was a good player since last WC.

Letwin_Larry

Squidgy Black wrote: »

.... You must not pay much attention to the news if you think that's what's happening in South Africa these days.

no but i do visit there about x5 every year

Clegg

Best stat about SA winning the World Cup is Francois Steyn becoming a double World Cup winner. How is he just 32? He won his first in 2007 when he was 20. A bloody baby!

eagle eye

Could make a case for PSDT over Juan Smith[/quote]
Well firstly Mapimpi would be in ahead of Kolbe.
De Jager, le Roux and De Klerk also deserve serious consideration. The whole front row, starters and bench, are all magnificent players too.
De Allende as mentioned above too.

awec

eagle eye wrote: »

Well firstly Mapimpi would be in ahead of Kolbe.
De Jager, le Roux and De Klerk also deserve serious consideration. The whole front row, starters and bench, are all magnificent players too.

De Jager wouldn’t get near Botha or Matfield. That was an iconic engine room.

[Deleted User]

castor 1 wrote: »

Surely one of the highlights has to be England’s demolition of the All Blacks !

That's a one off, I am looking at the tournament as a whole.
England beating New Zealand is hardly earth shattering in and of itself also

Squidgy Black

eagle eye wrote: »

Well firstly Mapimpi would be in ahead of Kolbe.
De Jager, le Roux and De Klerk also deserve serious consideration. The whole front row, starters and bench, are all magnificent players too.
De Allende as mentioned above too.

Le Roux certainly wouldn't get ahead of Percy Montgomery. Especially not the way he played in this world cup.

RugbyLover123

eagle eye wrote: »

Could make a case for PSDT over Juan Smith

Well firstly Mapimpi would be in ahead of Kolbe.
De Jager, le Roux and De Klerk also deserve serious consideration. The whole front row, starters and bench, are all magnificent players too.
De Allende as mentioned above too.[/quote]

I’m not sure I’d have Mapimpi over Kolbe. Kolbe is a superior player. I’d probably have Pieterson over Mapimpi too. Habana & Kolbe all day long for me.

De Jäger instead of Matfield or Botha and Le Roux over Montgomery I’m not so sure either.

De Klerk is too close to call though yes.

Marx in the form he was in in 2017 is better then Smit. But then again Smit wasn’t even the best hooker in ‘07!

Letwin_Larry

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a one off, I am looking at the tournament as a whole.
England beating New Zealand is hardly earth shattering in and of itself also

England's game was all about power and strength.
Today they met a side who refused to be bullied, and who were intent on drawing on something bigger than rugby.

[Deleted User]

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

England's game was all about power and strength.
Today they met a side who refused to be bullied, and who were intent on drawing on something bigger than rugby.

It was always the pitfall and I am surprised that Jones did not have a different plan to fall back on.
Now losing Sinkler was a hammer blow, that basically gifted SA scrum possession but England should have had more options in the front 3 to call on.

bilston

Kudos to SA, I thought their physicality would make it difficult for England as they are the one team that England can't overpower. However I still felt England would have too much.

SA were worthy winners.

Pollard must be one of the most underrated 10s in the game. He rarely gets talked about, but the pace he can hit the line at is something else. People talk about the impact of Erasmus, and that is obviously a major factor, but SA's renaissance has also coincided with Pollard's return fromminjury.

awec

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It was always the pitfall and I am surprised that Jones did not have a different plan to fall back on.
Now losing Sinkler was a hammer blow, that basically gifted SA scrum possession but England should have had more options in the front 3 to call on.

I was surprised Jones didn’t bring Marler and Kruis on at half time to try and fix the scrum.

Also Ben Youngs is absolute muck. Wouldn’t even pick him for Ulster.