Comments on: The pros and cons of World Cup rugby http://www.sportsleader.co.za/willcarling/2008/07/01/the-pros-and-cons-of-cup-rugby/ Tue, 22 May 2012 10:16:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Audi http://www.sportsleader.co.za/willcarling/2008/07/01/the-pros-and-cons-of-cup-rugby/#comment-6061 Audi Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:31:57 +0000 http://www.sportsleader.co.za/willcarling/2008/07/01/the-pros-and-cons-of-cup-rugby/#comment-6061 That was a great post...I love this site.. Thanks That was a great post…I love this site.. Thanks

(Report abuse)

]]> By: Nic http://www.sportsleader.co.za/willcarling/2008/07/01/the-pros-and-cons-of-cup-rugby/#comment-3886 Nic Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:09:05 +0000 http://www.sportsleader.co.za/willcarling/2008/07/01/the-pros-and-cons-of-cup-rugby/#comment-3886 What is "best of breed"? Is it a Ferrari F1 car, or Is it a Toyota Corolla? RWC v Tri-Nations v Baa-Baas arguments suffer the same fault, viz. they cannot reach an answer as to what is "correct" or "best". That being said, I don't care how, when or why but two world cups feel might damn fine! What is “best of breed”?
Is it a Ferrari F1 car, or
Is it a Toyota Corolla?

RWC v Tri-Nations v Baa-Baas arguments suffer the same fault, viz. they cannot reach an answer as to what is “correct” or “best”.

That being said, I don’t care how, when or why but two world cups feel might damn fine!

(Report abuse)

]]> By: Michael Trapido http://www.sportsleader.co.za/willcarling/2008/07/01/the-pros-and-cons-of-cup-rugby/#comment-3869 Michael Trapido Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:43:11 +0000 http://www.sportsleader.co.za/willcarling/2008/07/01/the-pros-and-cons-of-cup-rugby/#comment-3869 Don't have a go at uncle Will for calling it as he sees it guys. He knows a lot more about the game than most. One thing I love about this lad is there are no rose coloured glasses even when it comes to England. That said I'm sure the Man United element of his character has to crack a mention...not that I'm saying it's a bad thing...it just goes to the question of sanity M'Lord... Don’t have a go at uncle Will for calling it as he sees it guys. He knows a lot more about the game than most.

One thing I love about this lad is there are no rose coloured glasses even when it comes to England.

That said I’m sure the Man United element of his character has to crack a mention…not that I’m saying it’s a bad thing…it just goes to the question of sanity M’Lord…

(Report abuse)

]]> By: Swannie http://www.sportsleader.co.za/willcarling/2008/07/01/the-pros-and-cons-of-cup-rugby/#comment-3858 Swannie Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:35:22 +0000 http://www.sportsleader.co.za/willcarling/2008/07/01/the-pros-and-cons-of-cup-rugby/#comment-3858 I'm with you William - also worried about the influence of RWC on the tests scene in between world cups. The Tri Natiions last year (preceeding RWC) was a farce - the Boks came a bad third, yet won RWC. I thus agree when you say "each and every Test match is important, and as such every point should be earned and every point fought for — in every way, if necessary!" As far as I'm concerned, RWC has a bad influence on test rugby. If a nation becomes indifferent to losing test matches in the four years between world cups the spirit of rugby has truly gone down the drain. I’m with you William - also worried about the influence of RWC on the tests scene in between world cups. The Tri Natiions last year (preceeding RWC) was a farce - the Boks came a bad third, yet won RWC.

I thus agree when you say “each and every Test match is important, and as such every point should be earned and every point fought for — in every way, if necessary!”

As far as I’m concerned, RWC has a bad influence on test rugby. If a nation becomes indifferent to losing test matches in the four years between world cups the spirit of rugby has truly gone down the drain.

(Report abuse)

]]> By: Craig http://www.sportsleader.co.za/willcarling/2008/07/01/the-pros-and-cons-of-cup-rugby/#comment-3854 Craig Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:18:54 +0000 http://www.sportsleader.co.za/willcarling/2008/07/01/the-pros-and-cons-of-cup-rugby/#comment-3854 Is there a large plate of sour grapes next to that big armchair Will? Why don't you rather just say you don't like the South African rugby team and be done with it? We don't like the English much so its ok to say it. Which is why thumping them twice last year was so satisfying. Is there a large plate of sour grapes next to that big armchair Will?

Why don’t you rather just say you don’t like the South African rugby team and be done with it?

We don’t like the English much so its ok to say it.

Which is why thumping them twice last year was so satisfying.

(Report abuse)

]]> By: Grant W http://www.sportsleader.co.za/willcarling/2008/07/01/the-pros-and-cons-of-cup-rugby/#comment-3851 Grant W Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:01:49 +0000 http://www.sportsleader.co.za/willcarling/2008/07/01/the-pros-and-cons-of-cup-rugby/#comment-3851 Hmmm, funny how the two years where the team that was not best in the world but that won the world cup both home and away happens to have been South Africa. Must have just got lucky I guess. Twice. Lucky us. I thought guts and the ability to win when it counts are part of a great team. Is it just not possible that they happened to be the best side, even if their talents did not include throwing the ball wide (although I seem to remember they were the only side to cross the line in the final in 95 after some pretty wicked ball-swinging rugby and how about the lashing they gave Australia at the opening game)? Unlike in 2007, in 1995 we beat Australia, France and New Zealand, fair and square. Why is that luck? I hear what you are saying about negative play in world cups in general though. Teams are more scared to lose than they are keen to win. But to insinuate that SA was anything but scintilating on attack in the 2007 cup (even though officialdom behind the scenes seemed intent on demolishing our side off the field for no consistent or legitimate reasons) means you have surely forgotton what 38-0 means... Hmmm, funny how the two years where the team that was not best in the world but that won the world cup both home and away happens to have been South Africa. Must have just got lucky I guess. Twice. Lucky us. I thought guts and the ability to win when it counts are part of a great team.

Is it just not possible that they happened to be the best side, even if their talents did not include throwing the ball wide (although I seem to remember they were the only side to cross the line in the final in 95 after some pretty wicked ball-swinging rugby and how about the lashing they gave Australia at the opening game)? Unlike in 2007, in 1995 we beat Australia, France and New Zealand, fair and square. Why is that luck?

I hear what you are saying about negative play in world cups in general though. Teams are more scared to lose than they are keen to win. But to insinuate that SA was anything but scintilating on attack in the 2007 cup (even though officialdom behind the scenes seemed intent on demolishing our side off the field for no consistent or legitimate reasons) means you have surely forgotton what 38-0 means…

(Report abuse)

]]>