racha Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 besides the Home advantage (not always probing, history shows), am i right?The world cup has only been played since 1987 so a bit hard to see home ground advantage from the stats not going very far back, So far 2 home wins, 1 home loss and 1 final no home teams, 1987 Rugby World Cup shared between Australia and New Zealand with a home win to NZ beating France 29 to 9 1991 Home loss to England with Australia winning 12 to 6 1995 Home win South Africa beat New Zealand 15 to 12 1999 No home team in the final played in UK, Australia beat France 35 to 12 2003 Australia the hosts 2007 France the hosts with some first round games in UK 2011 yet to be known will be decided in 2005 with Japan and USA mentioned to be favorites otherwise may go to South Africa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 2 points:1) I was referring to all rugby tournaments like the 5 then 6 nations, and also test matches between locals and visitors as teams tour another country. 2) Australia lost to France in 1987, in Sidney. I remember it was quite a shock then. the cup was played both in NZ and Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racha Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 I was referring to all rugby tournaments like the 5 then 6 nations, and also test matches between locals and visitors as teams tour another country.The home team always has the big advantage and more wins in those games, I was mentioning the world cup as that is what this thread is about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Hi Peter Japan will give them a game...they have played well..but not for 80 minutes. I have a hunch they will beat the US ...just...IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Hi No news yet on the extra player...Poms are saying ""not our fault"" sorry guys ..no good..your interchange guy was not on the ball. i think a fine at worst..IMO You are hinting at fitness of England? Thats what the commentators were saying about Samoa..if they were fitter they would have won..or pushed the poms right up to the clock. Oz are fit and they gave it to us :onfire:but i think we dropped so much ball...enough to win two games ..imo I agree 100% about Johnny Cash..thats why he played Samoa..they knew they would need his 15 points per game to make sure they would get the points to win. The comp is getting very interesting....great crowds..even in the rain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 "So many English guys are telling me this same story" Perhaps it is time to listen to them. Every Aussie and Kiwi I have met recently seems to be in denial about an English (or British for that matter) team winning the World Cup. t seems the tactic is to wait until the old boys (all16 of them!) turn up and then turn them over. It wont happen. England have rolled all you guys over at least once in the past year and they can do it again. They have the class and the power and just about all their wins have come from a building of pressure that means they can get results even when playing poorly. "If I am wrong the beers are on me after the final :up:" Same goes for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted October 27, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Johnny, All the speculation in the world isnt going to change the fact that, on the day, England and NZ/Australia/whoever (South Africa ? Nah ...) both have to field the best team that they can and both have to deal with whatever combination of crowd input, weather and luck comes their way. I cant see *any* team emerging from a game with Samoa, Tonga or the like unscathed, and I'm sure that the length and intensity of this tournament will take its toll on all sides. I agree that the Wallabies need to face more worthy opposition than they have to date, and they need to do it *before* the sudden-death games, but they are looking fresher and more confident than they have in a long, long time. NZ are also looking awesome, so I cant see that the England team, as spectacularly good as they are, have the World Cup sown up. We need to take this on a game-by-game basis, and thats what makes Rugby the sport that it is - when relative minnows like Japan and the USA (apologies to their supporters, but neither team will be in the Final) can put on the sort of exhibition that they did last night, then we have a game worthy of the hype which has accompanied the lead-up here in OZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 I was mentioning the world cup as that is what this thread is about ----------------------- ....Sorry, I thought you were answering my post ::. So, Aus loss to Fra 1987 was in Sidney, no contest there? :hubba: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racha Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Sorry but I WAS answering your post and never saw you mention anything about any other tournament anyway back to the France win against Australia in 1987 yes that is correct 30-24 at the Concord oval Sydney, the darkest day in NZ rugby was when the French rated as the underdogs beat the All Blacks in 1999 world cup Semi Final 43 to 31, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Hi Peter. Oh well we agree it would be a close game. The Japanese only played for 70 mins again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.