We’re so predictable, aren’t we, us humans? New Zealand has won the 2011 World Cup and will continue to celebrate for a long time to come. And who cares what the rest of us think?
Meanwhile, beaten finalists France are already writing the history that French parents will pass down to their children – France lost the cup because of the referee, Mr Craig Joubert, from South Africa.
In the final 10 minutes, when France produced phase after phase, the referee, adopting a far too liberal approach to the game, failed to penalise the All Blacks for the penalty kick at goal that would have given France a glorious victory.
Damn Joubert!
Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to the French that had they displayed more enterprise, they might not have had to worry about sweating on the referee making a kindly call.
But it’s not only France who believe the referee cost them the World Cup.
Over in Wales, the story that will be handed down by Welsh parents to their children, is that the referee, Mr. Alain Rolland, an Irish-French mixed blood, cost the mighty Red Dragons a passage to the final by far too hastily sending their captain off for a dangerous tackle in their semi-final against France.
No matter that Wales missed five kicks at goal, of which if only one had been successful, they would have progressed to the final. It was all the referee’s fault.
And then there’s the South Africans themselves, who have been apoplectic in venting their fury at the referee from their quarter-final match against the Wallabies, Kiwi Bryce Lawrence.
Again, no matter that the Boks had enough possession to win a dozen games, but were totally incapable through their own ineptitude, to find the tryline.
Not even once.
And what of our beloved Wallabies, what is their excuse? Well, bless us Aussies, we’ve come up with a novel reason for losing the World Cup. And no, it has nothing to do with any referee.
It was that damn, foreign-born Kiwi coach what lost us the Cup, your honour.
If only we had a true-blue Aussie coach, everything would have been just dandy – the Wallabies would have swept all before them. Trust us!
No matter that neither our scrum nor forward pack as a whole was strong or tough enough, or that our chief playmaker was a lunatic.
To hell with our structural problems. We’re Aussies, who love to run the ball, and why is life so unfair to us?
Of course, let’s not forget our English friends.
The story that will pass from generation to generation, is that the team was totally debunked by some publicity-seeking bouncer in Queenstown, who dared to expose pictures of their only royally connected player – Matt Tindall – frolicking in the arms of a woman who wasn’t his royal-blood wife.
We will conveniently forget that many of the English players were in fact first class buffoons, who disgraced the English jersey.
Which is saying something, because both, the primary all-white and secondary all-black English outfits were abominable!
And so the excuses go on.
The 1995 All Blacks lost the final to South Africa because of alleged food poisoning.
No-one to this day, gives the Boks much credit for playing a great ‘team’ game, and totally shutting down the New Zealand threats.
And that’s what rugby is after all – a team game.
Or the England excuse from 1991, that they lost the game because they changed their style at the last minute. This conveniently forgets that earlier in 1991, England had been monstered by the Wallabies pack in Sydney.
They couldn’t beat them in the forwards, and they certainly wouldn’t beat them in the backs.
The element of surprise was their best bet, and it very nearly worked. But as in 2011, the better team still won.
In 1999, the Boks reckoned they were sure things beaten. If only coach Mallett hadn’t sacked captain Teichmann prior to the World Cup, and if only Bobby Skinstad was fully fit, surely they, and not the Wallabies, would have been world champions?
That’s the way it is, I guess, in sport and life – winners are grinners, and the losers rewrite their history (to preserve their own beliefs).
Mike
Guest
I have no fear in that regard 1ndians, as my other posts speak for themselves. I didn't think my jibes about bitterness and insecurity could be described as 'usual', but no matter: the point is that I reserve them for the small number of posters who merit them. But Hoy makes a good point - you do at least credit us with "sweet FA", which is more than the "FA" you allow to England. I am truly touched. ;)
Mike
Guest
Now you're talking. Graham Henry must be one of the most (if not the most) successful coaches of all time, against a larger pool than his predecessors, and I agree, the last 8 years is a very impressive performance for NZ by the standard of any sport.
Mike
Guest
Alex, Personally I don't think this was one of those games where the ref decided it. But I do think suggestions that the French infringed more (or less, for that matter) than the ABs are laughable. The ABs usually do well under Joubert, and they like him for that reason, but the essence of this game is that both sides turned up to play rugby and neither gave an inch. The referee was reasonably loose in what he allowed at the breakdown, but not overly so, and he gave a lot of verbal warnings of his intentions. Hence the very close scoreline. "AB struggle so much to win against “the worst” team of the tournament. Really Well done." I agree - I am constantly surprised at how some AB supporters put down the French, when that doesn't actually say much for their own side. The reality is that whilst the French struggled greatly in the earlier stages of this tournament (and their own coaches bizarre behaviour had a lot to do with that), it all came together for them in the final. Les Bleus were very dangerous in that game, and great credit is due to an AB team without Dan Carter that they were able to hold the French out. Many commentators wrote off the French prior to the match, but I haven't seen any sign that Graham Henry and his players did so. They prepared for a very tough match, and so it proved.
Damien
Roar Guru
Sheek The alleged food poisoning just before the 1995 RWC final was real for mine. I've read and heard enough about it. That doesn't necessarily make it fact but a statement from Brian Lahore (whose word I can trust) was enough to sway me. He claims that all the All Blacks bar 2 were vomitting and had the runs the before the final. The 2 All Blacks that were'nt afffected didn't eat with the team that night. They had snuck out for some KFC instead. Of course we all know SA won that epic match but I believe the food poisoning deliberate or not took place.
josh from ireland
Guest
talking about new zealand here they made it too final not japan every place needs a break now and again in ireland we could done with a big win in wc but we were not good enough
Jerry
Guest
The try itself was fine - the turnover leading to it, not so much. Rougerie was never actually bound to the ruck when he kicked it out.
Razza
Guest
We can all have our say on the Rugby final, but it is over the All Blacks won, they only had to win by 1 point and they did, the French had their chance and blew it, but were worthy runner ups and they will be there again. I have nothing to say about the Wallabies other then, they had their chance also. But what i would like to say is that all teams are beatable, forget their past record or who plays in their team, it comes down to what happens on the day or night and how the game is let play by the ref, it could be the wind, rain, injuries, penalties, what ever, no one can predict the outcome and the Final was a good example. A cracker of a game that the the All Blacks won on defence and direct goal kicking. Well done All Blacks.Well done France, thanks for an exciting second half. Razza
Hoy
Roar Guru
How come we have sweet FA, and England only have FA?
2many1ndians
Roar Rookie
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey. Will be a refreshing relief the day you can actually post something on The Roar without having to resort to your usual 'bitterness and insecurity' jibes. Careful Mikey, people may start thinking it is infact you who is bitter and insecure.
josh from ireland
Guest
we are talking about new zeland here wc champs here every place has it problems 911 japan floods in oz fires in oz nz made it and deserve to win best team by far never like them french sore losers
Ross
Guest
"I am sick of people who have only watched the game once saying that France were the better team in the final. Please watch it again. " The people who acknowledge that France played better than New Zealand in the final include Graham Henry who has said: " "We didn’t play well in the final," Henry acknowledges initially. "But we managed to keep on task and showed a lot of character and quite a bit of discipline. The French played better than we did and that was difficult. But it’s about getting a result and at the finish we managed to do that." It is a testament to the spirit and composure of the New Zealand team that they can grind out wins when they aren't at the top of their game (as Australia did against Ireland in 1991, SA against France in 1995 and England against Wales in 2003). The incredible chippyness and defensiveness by some New Zealand fans- in contrast to Graham Henry and the players- who take any acknowledgement of France's performance as a personal insult and evidence of an Australian & Northern Hemisphere conspiracy to deny the All Blacks their dues really does not do New Zealand any favours.
dunc
Guest
Fair point,. ok what about the last eight years then...85 percent record over 103 internationals...lets see, NY Yankees, Barcelona, Manchester United, ah likely not close...
Mike
Guest
True. And a good win it was. We look forward to facing you in 4N in 2012.
Mike
Guest
Of course its a great record, when NZ only played a handful of teams for most of that period! So no, you're not remotely close to the "best pro sports team in the past 100 years". Just be thankful that rugby is becoming a world sport - your success is finally starting to have some meaning!
Mike
Guest
Thanks for baring the insecurity and bitterness in your soul, 2many1ndians. Not to worry, our therapy service is free!
Jerry
Guest
If the result was 'arranged' why would he let Rougerie get away with the turnover for the French try. In fact, he made a few mistakes but reffed the breakdown fairly consistently throughout. Both sides were diving all over the ball and entering from the side. The Donald kick went over - you make yourself appear to be a crackpot trying to argue that theory. http://i52.tinypic.com/2qnzhpx.png http://i51.tinypic.com/11s00mw.png Why would the 15 French players watching that ball not query it if it missed? And he started playing advantage when Parra didn't retire immediately. Read did. There's simply no inconsistency there. People can go through and point out a few errors he made that helped the AB's, and I'm sure a close analysis would reveal a few the other way. That's rugby.
Alex
Guest
Yes they did but it was not for that. Look at Joubert he said play on for this offence. We giot the scrum for something else. Sorry. For Parra, he gave advantage for the AB as soon as Parra was offside, not for Read If you complain on the french try, we can also complain on the AB try. The AB got the ball in an illegal manner. The kick from Mc Donald may not have pass either. You won the WC great, congrats, we weill deal with it. But you have to deal with the fact that the result was arranged. It was the same way as in 1995 when the South Af "needed" to win the WC.
Jerry
Guest
Or indeed the fact that Rougerie kicked the ball out from an offside position leading to the French try....
Jerry
Guest
France got a scrum about 5 seconds after the Kaino knock on anyway. And if you can't see the difference between Read going offside and retiring without affecting play and Parra going offside then tracking sideways so that he can make the tackle once he gets back onside....
Alex
Guest
Great comments so why don't we give the WC to Japan. they had lot more crap than NZ!