Do you prefer tight contests or easy victories in RWC finals?

Finals are normally tight defensive orientated affairs, teams trying to outclass one another on defence or attack, seldom there are runaway victories where an opponent is totally outclassed.

In 6 RWC finals there has been a total of 9 tries, but there has been a total of 41 penalties and a total of 4 drop goals.

That gives you an average of 1.5 tries per final, 6.83 penalties per final and 0.66 drop goals per final.

Do we expect these finals to be slugfests or try fests?

What say you?

Tryfests. Its why we play the game- to score tries. Those who prefer slugfests are usually those who know no other way.

A tight game is great.

Australia vs Ireland last week was a great game. Plenty of skill on show, but awesome defence too.

Tight and even an exciting result.

Then again Wales Fiji in 07 or Wales NZ in 03 were equally thrilling.

nice poll (I like the the descriptions)

question is will the so-called new interpretation of some of the rules will allow for more tries in the final or will it still be goalkicker paradise?

provided its not another england-SA final I would go for a try fests. but given england poor kicking form I actually expect them to score plenty of tries if they make the final.

I've only seen the last 4 finals and the 2003 one for me was the best by miles. 1 try a piece and it could have gone either way right until the end.

The 1995 final was a bit of a borefest with very little try scoring opportunities and no one wants to see a non-contest like 1999 or 2007.

Definitely you want to see a tight game but I suppose I wouldn't be too disappointed to see Ireland give NZ a long overdue shellacking in the final

As long as it's exciting - with the potetential for both teams to win towards the end - then for me it doesn't really matter if there are lots of tries. Obviously my ideal final would see a final score of 32 - 35, with a try in the last minute of time winning the match, but the reality is that this type of game is unlikely to ever happen in a final. being English I would naturally pick the 2003 final as my favourite and it did have one try a piece, and go down to the very last moments to be decided, so i think it had everything.

A France NZ final would be a hugely anticipated match, regardless of the result this weekend.

Hey biltong, your dream final's in progress... SA - Namibia... now tell me if you prefer a tight game.. !!! LOL!

I think it will still be a goalkicker paradise, as already quoted. For me, I prefer a mixed final, tries and goals, bur defo tries.

maestegmafia wrote:A tight game is great.

Australia vs Ireland last week was a great game. Plenty of skill on show, but awesome defence too.

Tight and even an exciting result.

Then again Wales Fiji in 07 or Wales NZ in 03 were equally thrilling.

maestegmafia, you just hit the nail onthe head. Tight match, as long as well played. No matter whether a high scoring or low scoring affair. The 2003 Wales-NZ match is a classic. As is the 2003 England-Australia final.

It's not about tries v penalties. What counts is a contest. Can't believe anyone wants a one sided final even if it's a try fest. I'd go along with most above, 95 and 03 were the most exciting.

1995 final for me - 2 best teams going head to head with great defences - Add in the Mandela drama and you've got one hell of a package.

In fact its the only final that Hollywood has made a film of so it must be the winner here

Always prefer it tight!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Always prefer it tight!

Wrong forum..

LOL!

offload wrote:It's not about tries v penalties. What counts is a contest.

Spot on. A tight, low-scoring match with the odd chance but no tries is often more tense and thus enjoyable than a match where teams take it in turn to score tries.

The game I most enjoy is a tight, physical, forward dominated affair where teams have to genuinely earn their scores. 2003 has to be the best ever Final.

OzT wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Always prefer it tight!

Wrong forum..

LOL!

biltongbek wrote:

OzT wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Always prefer it tight!

Wrong forum..

LOL!

Judging by that look, it is tight.......

and back on topic............

have to say the extra time does it for me, it really is a case of who blinks first then.

andy powells minder wrote:and back on topic............

have to say the extra time does it for me, it really is a case of who blinks first then.

APM, I rarely make it to extra time, tbh, much too old for that!

The implication with tight contests is that they are forward-oriented slug fests with conservative play and easy victories means a runaway success with loads of tries scored.

But what would you class Ireland vs Australia last Saturday? No tries scored, an exchange of penalties but in the end a comfortable victory. Take last year´s Hong Kong test or the AB wins in Sydney and SA. One team getting away early and the other team slowly pegging back (or in the Hong Kong case, the see-saw battle that went down to the conversion). Plenty of big defence, plenty of cutting attack but lots of tension and the end result going to the wire. Plenty of tension last week but in the end, looking at that margin, a comfortable victory for Ireland.

My point is do you need tries to make it an easy victory? The answer is no. To me this is more a question is one style of play in the World Cup the winning way? In the professional era, teams are better trained and better prepared. Can you only win a World Cup playing an expansive style or did last week´s result show that when it comes down to the nitty gritty, do you have to play a certain style to win?

Certainly there is compelling evidence to suggest that low error rates, good goal kicking and basic rugby are a recipe for World Cup success. But does this mean if your team doesn´t have a game that suits that style of play (Australia and to a lesser extent NZ) are you best served to changing your style of play?

If someone had suggested the possibility of a quarter final match up between France and England, Wales vs Ireland, South Africa vs Australia and NZ vs Scotland or Argentina, you have a perfect match up of styles and fierce rivalries. Let´s face it, no one is really confident of victory. There is no clear favourite for the final. We all are confident of getting to the final but we´re equally nervous about what lays ahead. To me you couldn´t get a better advertisement for the game. For me rugby needed more than a few hopefuls for the final win. Now it seems realistically 7 of the 8 teams are capable of winning and even the 8th is worth a punt.

What concerns me is that these teams retract into a safety first mentality. Genia was talking about curbing the Wallabies´ natural instincts. No! Every team has a strength and every team has to adapt to the side you´re playing and the events of the match as they occur. There is no one magical formula to adopt. There are subtle and not so subtle variations available to each team.

My most memorable victories are not when there is a blow out against a traditional foe. It´s the victories where your side is in a real contest. Where the opposition are gaining a psychological edge. Where your team has to adapt to the referee, the opposition tactics, where mental fortitude matter and keeping the faith in your best chance of victory. Not a dogged denial of your natural instincts, or a shutting up of shop.

The most memorable games are where both teams rise to the challenge and the end outcome is in doubt and the best means to get that victory. There isn´t one way to play rugby and nor is there one way of winning. Tight contests entail many things. The match ups we have in store have a difference of styles, different strengths and weaknesses but it´s lazy to think that one is tight and conservative and the other is flashy and thrilling to watch. NZ´s dominant performances this year have been a nice balance of controlled fury in the forwards mixed with backline play seeking space and quick recycling. They have been convincing displays and neither were tight contests. But we lost our away games, and they were tighter contests. But the answer doesn´t lie in replicating what was done in the home tests and doing the opposite of what we did in the away tests. Rugby is more complex than that.

So sorry for rambling but do I prefer a tight contest or an easy victory? I want an AB win again desperately but I´d like to think that the boys were involved in a game where they had to dig deep for that win and that it didn´t come easily. That would be more satisfying than an easy win but a tight contest represents many things. There are many ways to skin a cat is a cruel expression. The World Cup is a cruel competition sometimes. But it deserves the best showcase because this is a wondrous sport we love. And love can be expressed in many ways just like rugby.

kia kaha

Kia, i started this thread this morning after reading a few of my Kiwi and Ozzie mates think rugby without tries are boring.

By getting the stats of the RWC finals to date, it has showed that although thries are scored in RWC finals, most teams and I include australia and New Zealand in this debate, have used kicks to goal as much as any other nation.

The fact is when it comes to knock out rugby, it is natural to be more conservative, simply because running out of your own 22 can cause 7 points against you if you make an error.

rugby is a game of balance, balance in the forwards and balance in the backs.

any team needs to have at least parity up front in the scrums, line outs and breakdowns to be able to run the ball, otherwise doing it from the back foot is much more difficult. Offensive defence is another manner in which teams can create opportunities for counter attacks, but once again not possible if the defending team is allowing the opponents to gain the advantage line with their attacks.

The all Blacks have that balance, they have parity against their opponent and becasue of the fact that they can compete in the scrums, rucks, line outs and defend offensively they earn the right to run the ball.

Other teams such as SA, Ireland and England are more conservative in the sense that they run the ball more direct and with less creativity, but nonetheless run the ball.

Australia often runs the ball even when on the back foot, and that is why they sometimes lose matches, purely because they haven't earned the right to go out wide yet. When they gain parity they are much more dangerous and successful.

In both the finals SA competed there were no tries scored, now you can't say it was becasue teams didn't try. That will be a fallicy. In the 1995 RWC SA had a try disallowed, can't remember what for, but they tried to score tries. In the 2007, England had a try disallowed, so they also tried to score tries. But what if the defences are too good? do you walk off the field or do you take your kicks?

The whole point is no matter what type of rugby a team plays, there is a place for it all and teams play to their strengths and vary in their ability and willingness to take risks.

It is all a balancing act, not the one or the other.

biltongbek wrote:The fact is when it comes to knock out rugby, it is natural to be more conservative, simply because running out of your own 22 can cause 7 points against you if you make an error.

But it can just as easily mean 7 points for your team if you don't make an error!

I understand your point though and it's understandable that teams tend to become more conservative as the stakes get higher; but I'd hate to see a team like Australia, whose strongest weapon is the ability to attack with ball in hand, eschew that in the belief that they're more likely to win playing a more conservative way. Why would you choose to take away one of your main assets and thus make the opposition's task easier?

you are missing my point. I am not saying either way is wrong, what i am trying to explain here is teams have different views of approaching the game and neither should be criticised.

And I agree with that. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't want to see teams whose greatest threat lies in their ability to attack with ball in hand deciding not to continue in that vein because they think (erroneously) that they have to play a more conservative game in order to win the World Cup. That would be as counter-productive as England's decision to start running the ball in the 1991 final rather than sticking with what got them to the final in the first place.

Well at the end of the day, that is where teams have to take the responsibility for decisions made on the field.

whether it comes off or not, they must be gracious in victory and gracious in defeat. No crying over spilt milk if they lose.

Yes that was my point luckless, albeit rambling one. There are different horses for courses and teams shouldn´t be just adopting one homogenous style of conservative footy. Teams have to play to their strengths and adapt their game to the conditions and opposition and ref sometimes.

If I were Oz I´d say we´re not going to change. Just play smarter in the forwards which they can and get front foot ball for the backs. That´s what NZ has struggled to do in the RWCs but they have other options if their linking play gets shut down.

Its the same old argument. Teams are scared to play so they shut down and then claim its a good thing just to feel better. If NZ need to do a bit of that to win it and get the monkey off their back then so be it.

But it will be because everyone else is playing the scared and run game not because its chosen, its because they think its effective and less risk.

Then after this world cup NZ will go back to scoring tries and winning matches easily- particularly in the the NH, because in the NH they will have been lulled into thinking that style actually works- until they meet someone prepared to take risks.

Then what will we have learnt?

At least this weekend tries should be scored because its two teams that arent scared of going for them

What will we have learnt?

If all goes according to plan? That you win tournaments through having a stingy dogged defence and ruthlessly taking your points whenever the opportunity arises.

It has ever been thus, so we'll learn nothing new.

Hi ya PJ,
Gets my goat with all this negative play talk being a good thing...so perhaps tournaments are won that way but not if the AB's are in the somewhere I'd hope. 95 was won that way. 87 our way...

So hopefully this year we'll be singing Sinatra's song again...

Hi T'man,

I'm not a believer in one way or the other to be fair, but I don't think a game is necessarily dull or negative through lack of tries, it is only usually negative through lack of ambition.

Lack of ambition is rarely a trait you can attribute to World Champions, but I can think of one example.

I think ye'll be OK mate .

And now, the time is near...

1995 was the best world cup, 1999 the worst

I don't know Alyn apart from England v Australia I can't remember any exciting games in 1995. It stands out because of Jonah Lomu and SA winning the final but there were very few great games that I remember.

1999 was a poor one though bar France v NZ.

I thought 2003 and 2007 were much better. This one has been very good so far.

Predictably 2003 was polled highest because of a NH win but was nothing special.
2007 was a bore fest,the worst RWC of all only the performance of Argentina,and to a lesser extent Fiji redeemed it.
England deserve an honurable mention for making thefinal,BUT with 3 beatings in 2007 to the Boks 2 of over 50points could`nt have been confident of winning it.
This year only one shock so far,NZ losing Saturday might be if they do but it`s happened before.
Of the Favourites SA have performed in parts,todays victory over Namibia looks good on paper but too many dropped balls.
Australia have been good for 10minutes so far poor the rest,All Blacks given the opposition hardly stretched.
France and England good in parts,the rest OK.
There is NO wrong or right way to win a RWC,just take each game as it comes.Adapt your play to the othere side,the weather,and the REF.
Ireland may not have had any tries v Aus. but you were on the edge of your seat.Because Aus have a rep for creating something from nothing.

So the grand slam the AB's got werent particularly a highlight Rodders? Funny, they were at our end... some huge tries. Kronfields against Ireland one of the best.

emack, I think 2003 probably polled highest due to the dramatic nature of the final rather than the eventual winners.

The final is probably what defines a WC in most peoples minds.

2003 was a scrappy final,neither side played particulaly well,or even at least by the Then Englands standards in the whole tournament.
A dropped goal after 120 minutes ,was no more convincing than 1995 versus a NZ weakened by food poisoning.
You can cut out conspiracy theories but the "Food Poisoning"was confirmed
by no lesser person than Nelson Mandela`s Head of security.
SInce in 2003 England had a string of about 14 victories home and away v all the SH sides.The Myth the All Blacks were favourites in 2003 is rubbish,also 1987 was JOINTLY hosted by Australia and NZ and BOTH sides were JOINT favourites.

You look at the quarter final match ups that look likely and 3 of those quarter finals have nothing in them - Ireland vs Wales, Australia vs SA, England vs France. Teams may be confident of winning but you also have a nice mix of styles in those match ups. That´s great for the game that the quarters are so tight and making predicitions about who will get to the final is not easy.

This has all the makings of a great tournament simply because we have such even teams pitted against one another. Whose style or whose performance will be better on the day will make it compelling viewing.

At the start of the match today, I really thought we had a game. I was nervous but also genuinely happy to see France playing well and putting pressure on us. Our response was great but the nature of the tries didn´t make me overly happy. It was a hollow feeling. I was more impressed by the big hits of Thorn and Kaino.

So a great game needs both teams to be playing well. We didn´t get that in today´s match and an easy victory doesn´t leave me as satisfied as with a hard fought victory.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:At the start of the match today, I really thought we had a game. I was nervous but also genuinely happy to see France playing well and putting pressure on us. Our response was great but the nature of the tries didn´t make me overly happy. It was a hollow feeling. I was more impressed by the big hits of Thorn and Kaino.

So a great game needs both teams to be playing well. We didn´t get that in today´s match and an easy victory doesn´t leave me as satisfied as with a hard fought victory.

Spot on. By the time the third try went in, it was yawn time. NZ far too good for an inept French side.

Much preferred some of the tighter matches - SA v Wales one of the best examples. Disappointingly for the host nation, they may not get to show a good contest until the semi-final. But the others have more than made up for it. This has been one of the best balanced RWCs that I've watched since the opening one in '87. It's had some blowout scores, inevitably, but the overall standard is much better. Keep it going NZ.

"Tryfests. Its why we play the game- to score tries."

But good international teams play the game to win by scoring more points than the other team by whichever way they can.

A tight close game won in extra time is the most exciting by a country mile.

Watching the NZ game against Japan made me switch over and look for something exciting on another channel after about 10 mins. Darts, snooker, bowls I didn't care. Anything was better than wasting my life watching a one-sided procession.

roddersm wrote:I don't know Alyn apart from England v Australia I can't remember any exciting games in 1995. It stands out because of Jonah Lomu and SA winning the final but there were very few great games that I remember.

1999 was a poor one though bar France v NZ.

I thought 2003 and 2007 were much better. This one has been very good so far.

Well... Wales Vs Ireland was good in the pool games with them beating us by 1 point to knock us out.

New Zealand scoring 145 points vs Japan was pretty awesome.

South Africa beating Australia in the opening match was special.

The Argentina pack smashing the English pack was awesome, they got their reputation as scrumagers in that game, no one had ever used the words "Scrumaging and Argentina" in the same sentance before that match. One try was amazing with them shunting the english back at the rate of knots.

Pool B was a real pool of death with England, Samoa, Argentina and Italy in it. England had won 4 Grand Slams in 6 years before that tournament, and Samoa, Argentina and Italy were probably at the highest standard any of their countries ever have been.

The massive fight between Canada and South Africa with half the teams going over the advertising boards, and many of them being suspended.

Chester Williams the unwanted black winger coming in as a late replacement and scoring 4 tries, making himself a national hero in s
South Africa.

Gavin Hastings international goobye for Scotland

Max Brito getting paralised from the neck down while playing for Ivory Coast Vs Tonga.

1995 had it all to be honest.