England can't read too much into victory over sick All Blacks

I've said it before and I will say it again the AB's were nowhere near 100% for the game and that is why England looked so devastating pure and simple. I don't care if it is unsportsman like it is a fact. Oh and crash ball, cry me a river mate the French went into the AB's 22 once the whole match. They were also behind for the whole match. If you only loose to the AB's by only a point it doesn't mean you deserve to win.

Christmas was not a pagan festival...there was a pagan festival but it was not Christmas. Christians put Christmas into that date to celebrate the birth of Jesus.

Why is there an illness of some kind when the ABs lose?

Agree with you Richard. The English media protect their own well enough, so do the Australian media. What about the NZ media? Sold it off to the Australian media, there is virtually no NZ media, and NZ are very exposed, try tellig that to the.....

I'll admit that I don't recall the particular passage of play involving Weepu but I'll take your advice on this. My comment about Joubert's performance relates specifically to the latitude afforded to McCaw's work at the breakdown. His infringements were multiple, blatant and should have warranted penalties, a talking to and ultimately if continued - a yellow. I was a neutral watching the game (indeed, as a hemisphere colleague - and with the French playing such abysmal rugby up until the final - was supporting the Blacks going into the game). But my resounding feeling was that the ABs were out-enthused, outplayed and were headed towards a RWC disaster at home with the exception of one player: Richie McCaw. Now - unlike many - I don't attribute any blame to RMcC who as the defining 7 of his generation (perhaps any generation) played to the referee's interpretation and whistle. However, I do blame the referee for his poor breakdown interpretation and I don't see that the consistent freedom given to McCaw was counter-balanced by French penalties elsewhere across the park. Had Joubert done even a half decent job of enforcing the breakdown laws, the French would be RWC 2011 Champions today.

Crash Ball,really enjoyed your response,but will pull you up on one thing.I simply can't agree with your view of C.Joubert's reffing performance sans the final.People have said that nz was helped in the final,to me the reffing in this game tended to even itself out.A prime example was the lead-up to Dusatoir's try.This was created when Weepu put through a kick which was taken by the french,who counter-attacked.Problem was,the reason he kicked was that french players were behind him,and therefore offside, thus pressuring him into getting rid of the ball.In reality,the move should have died there and a relieving penalty awarded to the ab's.That's one example,and as the game progressed, and the french domination in the second half didn't materialise into points(the ab's defence was awesome,and legal),the frogs lashed out in frustration. The referee to my mind didn't cost the French the game, they did that to themselves.And I find it interesting that the french have pushed this angle, considering the '99 and '07 WC,when the refereeing really helped them to knock the ab's out.If the frogs had a legitimate gripe,it was in the '95 WC v sa, when Abdel Bennazzi scored the winning try only to have it rubbed out by a welsh git(he of the gold watch fame).

Thanks for your comment Richard. In response to: December 30th 2012 @ 4:19pm. You may be surprised to know that I have greater issue with Lawrence's performance during the SF that the Wallabies won, than the Ireland pool match which they lost. The world knows that the Wallabies (indeed all teams - but particularly the Wallabies) are best beaten by cutting their time and space. Historically, Wallaby wins have been grafted from (near) parity up front, fierce contest at the breakdown and intelligence and flair across the flanks. For the Wallabies: 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Lawrence was rightly criticised during this match for the blind eye he turned to the Irish team's consistently questionable line of defence, his interpretation of "the gate" and generally his "laissez-fare" attitude to the breakdown. However, Bryce Lawrence did not affect the outcome of this match. As you correctly point out: the Wallabies were smashed at the point of contact consistently. Wallaby set piece was a shambles, Gold loose forwards were glacial to the breakdown and with Pocock injured (and Dean's unfathomable failure to select a backup openside) we had the embarrassing scenario of Ben McCalman contesting the breakdown. Add to this the fact that the backline was effectively cauterised by the selection of an inside centre with no ball playing ability, undersized for a crash ball exponent who possesses a ludicrously upright running style and a stunning penchant for trotting directly at hulking opposition forwards who couldn't have been happier if he'd been delivered gift wrapped around the latest xBox. The Wallabies were for some reason attempting to play a Northern Hemisphere side with a distinctly Northern Hemisphere game plan which we are patently incapable of doing. Read: none out of 3 - that is bad. Lawrence was indeed atrocious in this game, but it was Robbie Deans that lost the game for the Wallabies. Wayne Barnes was just as pitiful in 2007 (and in my opinion is still an inferior referee to Lawrence generally) but no more so than Craig Joubert in the final of RWC 2011. Typically a very good ref, Craig's children must have been held at gunpoint somewhere in the Chatham Islands to have put in a display as one-eyed as that to gift NZ the Cup. Let's be clear: I don't hate Bryce Lawrence and I agree, the punishment for his RWC was disproportionate to his crimes. But his entire tournament was rubbish and the (non-extreme) criticism he has faced is based on performance, not nationality.

Well no need to pop a vain over matters of the past that can't be changed but so you basically disagrees that the French with flair and doirty tactics which the ref did not pin them for did not upset and influence their performance at all? After all they did not retaliate and they did not get any protection from the referee. I don't know what went through your mind when I asked if they did enjoy it as I was referring to dirty play. Maybe you choose to take the testicle part and ran with it in a way wrong direction.

Fair cop,CB.What is interesting is most nzers were quietly relieved that sa had been bundled out.The general concensus in nz was that, like the ab's themselves, the public were happier to be playing oz rather than sa.The rationale being that we while confident we would beat either team,the saffa forwards would present more of a challenge, and would take more out of the ab's (if) going into the final. As for Bryce Lawrence,sorry I have no time for the hate-fest directed at him.Having watched his game v Ireland where he was roundly ridiculed, tell me why.A dominant Irish pack out-played oz, and beat them fair and square,and yet he was roundly attacked by the oz press for his performance.The game was won and lost in the set-piece,most of the irish points coming from the pressure applied by their pack (scrum penalties).How was this Lawrence refereeing poorly?It got even funnier when Genia used his trademark play of using players or referees as a shield to create space to run into.He did it in this game(using Lawrence as a shepherd to ghost thru' a gap- only this time he was pulled up for it).Genia had used this same tactic v nz in the 2nd Bled, where the game was 20-20, and he ran at W.Barnes,who backed into Nonu and Smith taking them out of play, and enabling Genia to score the winning try.Funny,there was no whining out of oz after that game,I wonder why? The reality is that Lawrence succumbed to criticism that he frankly should have ignored.The fact that his career can be prematurely ended with pressure from oz and sa, then why is W.Barnes still refereeing, considering the disgusting display by him in Cardiff in 2007.I'll tell you why, because the poms protected Barnes,as he's one of their own.Whenever the ab's get stitched up,the grubby pom press instantly protect their own, and it is supposedly an example of the referee doing his job, and penalising the "cheating" ab's.Whichever way you look at it, all WC's are going to have refereeing controversies,other than 1987 and 1999, every winner has struggled at some stage to win.This will be the norm in most,if not all WC's.All teams tighten up,and play more conservatively as there is too much on the line.This also applies to refs, as they come under the spotlight in the most important tournament- and that isn't going to change anytime soon!

Grow up, ffs.

What they enjoyed it?

Uh, that wasn't an excuse. If anything, it was generally mentioned as something of a criticism of the soft underbelly of that AB side in that they let themselves get rattled by it. By comparison, the Wallabies the following week overcame the same dirty tactics.

In 99 it was the French knibling on their testicles!!

I respectfully disagree with SG's assessment of the ABs and their fans. The vast majority of Kiwis I have encountered freely admit when their team has clearly been outplayed, temper (sometimes legitimate) excuses with balance and certainly do not deride the importance of a RWC (even prior to the 2011 tournament). In the same breath, I can also think of acutely vocal exceptions to this rule (who tend to get significantly more air time, subsequent oxygen in the media and therefore, currency in both perception and recollection). However, this is by no means a uniquely Kiwi characteristic. However Richard, I also disagree with your (and most of South Africa's) recollection of the Bok VS Wallaby RWC quarter final. Every call most certainly did not go Oz's way. The universe knows, Bryce Lawrence had an atrocious game (much like his entire world cup) and there was indeed more than one occasion that Pocock illegally infringed. However, more often Pocock contested the breakdown and pilfered the pill outrageously well and to the letter of the law. More importantly, Lawrence's error-ridden game was just as detrimental to the Wallaby team and included amongst other clangers: several Bok offsides (at one point Habana virtually lined up in the Wallaby backline), a gratuitous infringement at the lineout and a gravity and logic defying forward pass call on Cooper with the Aussies poised, in motion and in full attack mode. Lawrence had a complete 'mare. And despite this, Australia won.

SG, try winning consistently year in, year out , and then you can talk.The reality is that people like you hang everything on the ab's not winning WC's, so you can throw the 'choker" jibe at us. As for nzers dismissing the WC as meaningless,rubbish. Our reaction to not winning proved that it meant everything to us.Lastly,but not least, to say you front up when you lose is laughable.Does a certain game v Ireland in the last WC ring a bell - the bleating by everyone from your players and bob dwyer - hey,it worked, come the quarter-final, every call went oz's way,but of course that was different.

Totally agree - still more worried about the Ozzies for 2015 than England...

I've honestly never heard anyone from NZ try and make excuses for 91, Frank. The team was simply a year or two past its best and didn't have the pack or strike power.

"Buck wasn’t gonna stop those tries by Campo." This needs to enshrined like the Nicene Creed.

+1

"You and your scribes rabbited on endlessly about World Rankings and a win/loss ration being the real barometer of the World’s best team. Funny how you’ve all abandoned that theory as you immerse yourselves in an orgy of self congratulations." Uh, in case you've not noticed the AB's are #1 in the rankings and have the best win loss in 2012. So, why would any NZ fans or scribes be arguing that no longer mattered?