The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

The last word on the 2007 World Cup final

Roar Guru
27th June, 2008
18

What was so wrong with the 2007 Rugby World Cup Final? It was a fair contest between two sides, one of which had been to hell and back on the way there, and another which had dispatched all it’s opposition in clinical fashion.

The game itself was a good contest, which may well have had a grandstand finish if the English had scored from a break midway through the second half.

Finals are by their very nature tight affairs, and the higher the stakes become, the tighter the games get, just look at the Champions League Final, the Super 14 Final, and the 2006 Soccer World Cup Final.

The point is, you’re never going to be able to recreate pretty rugby in a final of a major competition of a competitive sport. Even Brazil had to tone it down before they could win their first title in 20 years at the 1994 World Cup.

Very few people were moaning when Macqueen’s side won their semi-final with a drop goal and eight, yes eight, penalties in 1999 or when the Wallabies were the ones playing in dour finals in 2003.

The truth is a lot of this moaning is just sour grapes from Australasians who appear unable to appreciate sporting feats when they aren’t the ones who get to do the crowing after the final whistle.

It’s all ‘rugby’s become dour’ and ‘what a rubbish final series’, when they actually mean is that it’s not fair that we aren’t in the final.

Kipling was right, as all true sports fans know. when he said: “If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same, you’ll be a man my son!”

Advertisement

Love this article? Nominate it for The Roar’s Armchair Sports Writer Award. Or vote now for this week’s nominated articles.

close