bbc.co.uk Navigation

Mark Orlovac

England v France player ratings (243)

Paris - A brand new partnership of me, Orlo, and him, Dirsy, together in one blog.

Here are our player ratings for England's semi-final against France. I have rated England and Dirsy's rated France.

Do you agree? Let us know your thoughts!

ENGLAND:

Jason Robinson – Celebrated his 50th cap with an accomplished performance. Peppered with high balls but dealt with them well. Made a fine jinking run in the second half. 8

Paul Sackey – Did not have many chances to show his speed but helped dump Sebastien Chabal out of bounds as France desperately tried to get back into the game. 6

Mathew Tait – Tackled all night long to shackle the French midfield. Moved to the wing after Josh Lewsey came off injured but still tried to make an impact. 7

Mike Catt – Defensively sound and despite one poor pass to Tait, showed his experience at crucial times. 6

Josh Lewsey – Gave England the perfect start with an opportunist and well-taken try after 82 seconds. Always tried to give England go-forward but came off injured just before half-time. 7

Jonny Wilkinson – What more can you say about him? Not the most accomplished fly-half performance but again he kicked the penalty and drop-goal that sealed victory for England. 7

Andy Gomarsall – Delivered the kick that led to Lewsey’s try but box-kicking lacked direction at times. Defended well to shield a kick through in his own in-goal area. Came off with nine minutes to go. 7

Andrew Sheridan – Did not have the dominance he had against Australia but never took a step back. 7

Mark Regan – Throwing in at the line-out improved as the game went on. Held his own in the scrum before making way for George Chuter with 14 minutes left. 6

Phil Vickery – Had one knock-on but led from the front as always. Was not dominated by Olivier Milloud at scrum-time and made way for Matt Stevens on 56 minutes. 7

Simon Shaw – Typified the England forward effort. Worked his socks off in defence and even managed a nice offload in the tackle. 8

Ben Kay – The 2003 World Cup winner showed all his experience and delivered another hard-working display. Made a superb claim on the floor early in the second half. 7

Martin Corry – When you pick Corry you know what you are going to get. Graft. Always gave his all and put pressure on the French line-out. 7

Lewis Moody – Never stopped working for the England cause. Chased and harried everything that moved. Charged down two clearances and did some great work on the floor before coming off on 54 minutes. 8

Nick Easter – Settled down after some early nerves. Made a good charge-down and delivered a nice pass to keep an attack going in the second half. 7

Replacements:

George Chuter – Replaced Regan with 14 minutes left and was as solid as ever. 6

Matt Stevens – Came on for Vickery with 24 minutes to go and gave two early penalties away but redeemed himself with a juddering hit on Chabal. 6

Lawrence Dallaglio – Received a chorus of boos as he came on with 70 minutes on the clock but had little chance to make an impact. 6

Joe Worsley – Added impetus to England’s defensive effort when coming on with 26 minutes left. Produced a brillaint try-saving tap tackle on Vincent Clerc. 7

Peter Richards – Replaced Gomarsall on 71 minutes and did not have any trouble picking up the pace of the game. 6

Toby Flood – Came on for Catt with 12 minutes remaining. Made a poor decision to go for a drop-goal but did help dump Chabal out of bounds. 6

Dan Hipkiss – Strong and direct after coming on for Lewsey just before the break. Was a real handful for the French midfield. 7

wilkosympathy438.jpg

FRANCE:

Damien Traille – Was at fault for England’s first try and his kicking out of hand was mixed. He did, however, make some effective darts into the France back-line. 6

Vincent Clerc – Like Heymans on the opposite wing, rarely received the ball, although he might have scored but for a Worsley tap-tackle. 6

David Marty – Was well shackled by opposite number Tait, had a kick charged down and missed a tackle that almost led to an England try. 4

Yannick Jauzion – Some good carries and big hits and also showed some nice touches, but got very little change out of England’s midfield. 7

Cedric Heymans – Struggled to get into the game and was too ready to kick when perhaps he had other options. Replaced by Dominici on the hour. 5

Lionel Beauxis – The calmest, and best, player on the pitch before he was replaced. Lots of probing kicks, spot-on with his goal-kicking and a couple of half-breaks, but off target with several attempted drop-goals. Replaced by Michalak after 53 minutes. 7

Jean-Baptiste Elissalde – His pin-point passing gave Beauxis all the time in the world to strut his stuff outside him. Also made a couple of good sniping runs on the fringes. 7

Olivier Milloud – More than held his own in the scrum against England’s vaunted front-row and put himself about in the loose. 7

Raphael Ibanez – Hit his jumpers all night and showed some neat touches in open play before being replaced by Szarzewski after 51 minutes. 7

Pieter de Villiers – Like Milloud, matched his opposite number at scrum-time but rarely showed in the loose. 6

Fabien Pelous Solid in the line-out and some good bullocking runs, but too little field time to really impress. Forced off by injury and replaced by Chabal after 25 minutes. 6

Jerome Thion – Made no mistakes at the line-out and well up for the bruising battle up front, but gained few yards in open play. 6

Serge Betsen – Gave a big performance in what could be his last game for Les Bleus. Everywhere in the loose, some big hits and plenty of mongrel with ball in hand. Replaced by Harinordoquy 14 minutes from time. 8

Thierry Dusautoir – Some classy touches with ball in hand, plenty of evasive running and terrier-like at the breakdown, although he faded towards the end. 7

Julien Bonnaire – Was well up for the bruising forward battle but struggled to impose himself at the breakdown. 6


Replacements:

Dimitri Szarzewski – Hit his jumpers after replacing Ibanez and showed some nice touches in open play. Guilty of the high tackle that led to Wilkinson’s late penalty. 6

Sebastian Chabal – A typically bullish display from the France talisman. Always looking for the ball after replacing Pelous and almost scored. 7

Imanol Harinordoquy – Failed to make much of an impact after replacing Betsen and often second best at the breakdown. 5

Frederic Michalak – France lost much of their momentum after Michalak entered the fray. Some poor decision-making and could not match the cool-headed Beauxis. 5

Christophe Dominici – The live-wire winger rarely found himself in space and had little chance to shine. 6


Mark Orlovac is a BBC Sport journalist based in London. He will be based in Paris for the knockout stages of the Rugby World Cup.


Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 11:43 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • Jim wrote:

Well done England! Agree with ratings.

England can beat anyone when it comes to a kicking game – even South Africa or Argentina will bottle it next week and fall into our style of play under the pressure of being in the final.

Here’s hoping for another low try count next Saturday. We don’t look like we will score many tries so let’s hope the opposition aren’t looking to score many tries in the final either. Jonny can out kick everybody and we can be the first team to retain the trophy.

  • 2.
  • At 11:43 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • fat tony wrote:

Anyone know a plasterer who can fix my ceiling - the missus isn't happy

What a victory! Who was the MOM?

Great perfomance but I will have to watch the match again to rate them, Although I thought once again the workrate of both locks was immense.

  • 3.
  • At 11:44 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • Andy Pink wrote:

Guys,

It's been emotional. Unbelievable. My heart has only just returned to its normal rate!

I'm honoured to be the first to write on the first blog posting by the partnership - love the campervan stuff, Tom & Ben. You are all going to have a fantastic week!

Great team performance, and agree with the ratings. Thought Hipkiss did well in the circumstances, and Lewsey worked hard. The pack were awesome.

Mark - Have a really good week and give me a ring soon!

Dare we believe?

All the best...Andy

  • 4.
  • At 11:47 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • meg wrote:

Harsh scores I feel, particularly for Sackey and Heymans - I felt they both had good games based on what was in front of them. Still - a deserved result for England who not only put the pressure on, but converted it into points. First ever successful defense of the world cup may be on the cards.

  • 5.
  • At 11:48 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • JB wrote:

yep, agree with those ratings...
thought Hipkiss was a real handful when he came off the bench...earned himself a start maybe against SA/Argentina?? however, can't possibly drop Tait after such a solid performance...mite have to settle for a late substitutes role

  • 6.
  • At 11:49 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • Jim wrote:

Well done England! Agree with ratings.

England can beat anyone when it comes to a kicking game – even South Africa or Argentina will bottle it next week and fall into our style of play under the pressure of being in the final.

Here’s hoping for another low try count next Saturday. We don’t look like we will score many tries so let’s hope the opposition aren’t looking to score many tries in the final either. Jonny can out kick everybody and we can be the first team to retain the trophy.

  • 7.
  • At 11:51 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • Richard wrote:

Come on England, what grit and determination showed, fantastic! Jonny didnt have the best of games, but he proved that he is the best still, he backed himself till the end even though he wasnt kicking that well to start with. Agree with most ratings, but though hipkiss was great when he came on! in the end the decision to bring on michalak at 10 back fired, somtime it has worked to great effect, this time it didnt! and Paul Sackey should have been given at least a 7, thought he had a great game and took all his catches.

P.s. jonny to drop goal for world cup glory again anyone??? would bet agesnt it!

  • 8.
  • At 11:53 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • Pete wrote:

Fully agree with Jason Robinson having a (equal) top rating - didn't put a foot wrong. Man of the match. Great runs and his kicking was outstanding. I think 7 for Gomarsall is generous for the single reason, as you mention, that his kicking was lacking direction. I would say aimless and am at loss to explain how often he hoofed the ball to the opposition without looking where he was kicking, totally negating any chance of play making from Mike Catt. This must have deliberate tactic from Brian? It can't work against South Africa. But, what a result!

  • 9.
  • At 11:53 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • e.jones wrote:

A dream come true!We have our pride back and nothing else matters.Well done lads you have made me proud to be English once more !

  • 10.
  • At 11:54 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • nick wrote:

Worsley's tackle on Clerc surely has to be as important a tackle that has been made in RWC history and what a cracker it was too!! Roll on next week

  • 11.
  • At 11:54 PM on 13 Oct 2007,
  • Tim rugby wrote:

My team team mates and myself have just watched the game in Spain(most of them are Argentianians)We all agreed that England were the best team on the night!!
Vamos Las Pumas....cos really we all want to see a Eng/Arg final......don,t we!

  • 12.
  • At 12:02 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • longuepasse wrote:

I think your comment about Michalak is very perceptive, and I don't doubt that it's recipient would agree. The Sharks SA fly half will be only the better for getting away from Toulouse, and your comment on him, for all that it is blindingly accurate, should not boost your ego.

  • 13.
  • At 12:02 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • HugoParis wrote:

Congratulations for a fine victory, I wonder what could now bring down England's juggernaut. But this was probably one of the ugliest world cup rugby games ever, and I would have felt the same way, had France won 9-8. Both teams used woeful tactics, and they managed to turn a great sport into the most boring performance. For a neutral,it must have been dreadful to watch. France did not deserve to win, but neither did England. If this is what you need to win a world cup, then it surely means the death of rugby as a global popular sport.

  • 14.
  • At 12:04 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • ecordiale wrote:

Well done lads: These ratings are pretty balanced & a major improvement on the lamentable efforts by Tom & Dirsy after the Eng vs Aus QF.

Re these England ratings, I think that Robinson & Lewsey were the star turns, but reckon Tait, Moody, Shaw & Corry have all been over-rated.

Re the France ratings, I'd mark Traile & Heymans up 1 point each, & Chabal down 1. Agree Betsen & Bauxis were the star performers for Les Bleus.

  • 15.
  • At 12:04 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • matt keen wrote:

Well I never-England do not seem to know how to win pretty but winning ugly does still count.

Im still all over the shop to be honest but proud and amazed that this back of bulldogs do not know how to take a backward step,how to know when they are beaten and most importantly how to loose.

Yes luck has bee ridden and yes maybe France where the better team but who will want to play that bunch of teeth griting indistructables now?

Oh happy days

  • 16.
  • At 12:05 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Jonathan Winterbottom wrote:

the french played like out-of-fridge brie...without the taste of english jock-strap...

  • 17.
  • At 12:10 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • MARK wrote:

Thought Clerc had a better game than you rated. Always broke the gain line - best of the French 11-15. Mistake taking off Beauxis too early & Betsen at all. Seemed to just make subs for the sake of it rather than tactically.

Difficult to rate England - Everybody put in a 9/10 in defence. Tackling was immense.

Overall, Robinson was clear MOM for me - deserved at least 1 point more than anyone else - did not put a signle foot wrong all night. Sackey was probably best of the rest. All forwards were very very good without one being outstanding. Easter & Shaw were probably the pick though tired a little at the end. Stevens bar two stupid penalties was exceptional when he came on.

With 5 such top drawer front rowers in the squad we shouldn't be afraid to make changes early - even in the first half if need be. The reules allow you to bring the subbed players back on so we should have that as a plan B for next week.

  • 18.
  • At 12:16 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Ian Fielding wrote:

Great perfromance from the whole team but the defence was awesome! Lets not get carreid away with Wilkinson mania - this was won by the forwards and superb tackling.Shaw, Corry. Moody all awesome tonight

  • 19.
  • At 12:17 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Alex wrote:

I have been discussing a lot lately with Englishmen about the rugby world cup performances and most of them complain than the Pumas kicked too much (the French complain about that even more!). I hope all of them shut up after today's display from France and England!

  • 20.
  • At 12:19 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Alex, Tunbridge Wells wrote:

Wilkinson had a poor kicking game, but he tackled like a No 6. Even saw off Pelous with a monster hit.

Can't really say who man of the match was. No stand outs, but solid allround.

What next?

  • 21.
  • At 12:21 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Thought England deserved the win. We were good right the way through the XV and the replacements. Michalak? Not the player he was! For a fly-half who makes a difference in BIG games forget Michalak, forget Carter - Wilkinson's yer man. The guy is class.

  • 22.
  • At 12:22 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Marshmellow Tentacles wrote:

Unfortunately it was another dire advert for world rugby. There is little hope that the upcoming final will turn out any differently. Congrats to England for doing what a team has to do at this stage of the comp but it is a good thing that the world has DVD recorders equipped with fast forward capabilities.

  • 23.
  • At 12:23 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Ray wrote:

Not sure that I would agree with Shaw's comments...he played well but what was he trying to do with his dainty kick - it was him wasn't it
and
Flood was too keen to claim a 25m drop out rather than seeing if the ball would run dead.
England scrapped through again but its good enough for the final.

  • 24.
  • At 12:24 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Stig wrote:

Epic. Absolutely brilliant. Out of shout. Bring on next Saturday. Who cares about the ratings? What more can I say?

  • 25.
  • At 12:24 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Donnyballgame wrote:

Quibble, quibble, quibble.
They won!

OK, Jonny was off (again) with his kicking, but don't forget he was good with ball in hand and terrific in defence. Shaw and Moody were the two best players on the pitch, period.

But WHY do England still kick straight dow the fiels straight to their backs and not into touch? And How many French knock-ons was the referee not going to call? Told you I was quibbling. Really do respect the French on the day, however.

  • 26.
  • At 12:25 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • fat tony wrote:

Anyone ever rate the commentators and Pundits?

Will Greenwood 7 - Quality - knows what players are feeling and has great technical input

Stuart Barnes 2 - Am I alone in thinking the game would be better without him - Does he just sit with a dictionary looking for long words to squeeze into his commentary !

Any comments ?

  • 27.
  • At 12:32 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • ecordiale wrote:

I'd have given Sackey a 7 at least.

  • 28.
  • At 12:36 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

fat tony: agree. Barnes is a prize plonker and can't read a game to save his life. No wonder he was only ever a reserve player for England.

  • 29.
  • At 12:37 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Frankness wrote:

At last proper ratings...

  • 30.
  • At 12:39 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Neil Meadows wrote:

Jonathan Winterbottom wrote:
"the french played like out-of-fridge brie...without the taste of english jock-strap..."

What's all that about?

Two pints of what he's on please....

  • 31.
  • At 12:41 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Heraldo wrote:

If Marty was shackled by Tait I think you have been a little harsh on Tait's rating. This boy (Tait) played at my club (Darlington) as a junior (a fact ommmitted from his biograhpy) but tonight he came of age. Bring on his brother Alex who by the next world cup could be much more of a prospect.

  • 32.
  • At 12:48 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Darren wrote:

Sorry but Beauxis whilst being a great kicker does not seem to be the greatest tactician of all time. Robinson gave one of the best demonstrations of how to handle the high ball but yet Beauxis kept trying it over and over again. Then when he changed direction Sackey showed hes not too bad under the high ball either. However Beauxis should never of been been taken of. Michalak showed all the composure of a 10 yr old, he did not have much of an appetite for the battle at all.

  • 33.
  • At 12:50 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Tom Williams wrote:

I think it's pathetic how people go on about an unattractice style of rugby. It's what's needed to progess in a world cup.
I'd much rather play ugly rugby and win a world cup than play frilly, aesthetic rugby and get knocked out.
Plus, defense was incredible all game, as was robinson under high ball, wilinson came good when it mattered!

  • 34.
  • At 12:53 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Darren wrote:

Sorry but Beauxis whilst being a great kicker does not seem to be the greatest tactician of all time. Robinson gave one of the best demonstrations of how to handle the high ball but yet Beauxis kept trying it over and over again. Then when he changed direction Sackey showed hes not too bad under the high ball either. However Beauxis should never of been been taken of. Michalak showed all the composure of a 10 yr old, he did not have much of an appetite for the battle at all.

  • 35.
  • At 12:53 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Rob wrote:

Agree re. Barnes - his chat stinks, and Harrison isn't much better. Chabal may look slightly prehistoric, but there's no reason to bang on about it! Greenwood is very good.

Easter's 7 - probably deserved, but lost control of the ball at the base of that early 5m scrum, just when we could have done with turning the screw. Did make amends putting himself about later.

Sackey - he never really looks like he's trying, when he's on the front foot. Must be his long stride.

Tait - seems to be growing in confidence at this level - some nice hands and decent darts - hope he continues in that vein.

  • 36.
  • At 12:54 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • paulcedron wrote:

First of all, Congratulations!
Best players for me were Robinson, Shaw, Moody and despite the fact that it was not his best day for kicking, Wilkinson is always who solve the result.
Well done England, as an Argie i wish we could see you in the final

  • 37.
  • At 12:56 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Donnyballgame wrote:

Just noticed people who are still awake are asking who is MOM. It was Catty. I would have made it Moody since he was everywhere. But it is a very close call. I could also see giving it to Robinson, he was on.

The internet and the BBC website is a great way to relax after hosting 20 or so of your close friends and watching a friendly match of rugby on TV. You guys are great.

  • 38.
  • At 12:56 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Tom Williams wrote:

I think it's pathetic how people go on about an unattractice style of rugby. It's what's needed to progess in a world cup.
I'd much rather play ugly rugby and win a world cup than play frilly, aesthetic rugby and get knocked out.
Plus, defense was incredible all game, as was robinson under high ball, wilinson came good when it mattered!

  • 39.
  • At 01:02 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • KarlGlendo wrote:

Fantastic result for the ros-bifs. Tait put in a very good performance in defence against a very strong French midfield (when they could be arsed to run with the ball).
Can't wait for the game tomorrow eve. SA not on top of their game as per the last two run outs, plus a very strong Argie pack makes for an intersesting second semi.
Game On!

  • 40.
  • At 01:06 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • tim c wrote:

NEED TO WATCH IT AGAIN. Without my england goggles.Rugby is to all men .TEAM performance magic ,flair ok Contest absolutely awesome from both sides.
Never mind the boring comments to follow, a test in the real sense of the word.

  • 41.
  • At 01:11 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Jamie Stevenson wrote:

I agree with comments nos 26 & 28 that Will Greenwood has been the outstanding commentator and that Stuart Barnes has disappointed. Strange that someone so creative and intelligent as a player and with so much experience on Sky Rugby should appear unable to add serious value and insight. Greenwood does at least try to explain the technique or tactics behind moves. Barnes is too intent on evoking the atmosphere (which we don't need since the tension and excitement of a World Cup match are obvious) at the cost of enlightening us on the moves, the front row battles, the ruck & maul manoeuvres, the decisions and so on. Barnes can be a good commentator but he should be told to forget the hyperbole and histrionics and get his focus back on the basics of rugby.

  • 42.
  • At 01:14 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Matt wrote:

Dire advert ! Have you ever played a game of rugby in your life. You play each game as your last, and you play to your opposition. You play to win, not entertain. At the end of the day whose name is on the trophy is what counts. This was two teams that new each other too well.. bring on hipkiss for the final. Massive forward effort again, 100% england, lets hope for rain and cold next weekend!

English and pround, we are in the final and are defending champions.. if you don't like it where are you?

  • 43.
  • At 01:16 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Paul wrote:

Did no one else think Elissalde's service was poor tonight (too many high passes)? Having said that it was not a pretty game but both teams can hold their heads high as well as most of their fans - to anyone disrespecting either set of players: shame on you, watch something else. Tough, uncompromising rugby. True rugby fans will appreciate the efforts af all those players tonight. Proper international sport.

  • 44.
  • At 01:21 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Celtic Cousin wrote:

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!! Nice!!!

  • 45.
  • At 01:25 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • AndyD wrote:

Is it me, or is Stuart Barnes the worst commentator in RWC history ?

He finds new and interesting ways to annoy each match. Just move him aside and put Will Greenwood in his seat ... so we can listen to some excited and clever commentary.

  • 46.
  • At 01:25 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Pomme stuck in NZ wrote:

Did I see right? Did Mike Catt get MOM? He was interviewed on TV3 in NZ getting it. Not sure he did anything wrong but so many others made such efforts. Thought Hipkiss showed some class and Tait reassured our defensive concerns, Robinson, Sackey and Lewsey all had really sturdy performances, Wilkinson you can't complain about and the whole pack worked their socks off. Catt was about the only person I can't make a comment on. Maybe they picked him because he stood out the least.

Barnes may have been bad on ITV but at least you didn't have commentators constantly making references to forward passes and how fortunate England were that this Ref could see them.

I've been trying to work out, does this mean that England have the best WC record? I suppose Australia have one it twice but don't they otherwise go out in the quarter finals? Anyone know?

  • 47.
  • At 01:29 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Heraldo wrote:

Robinson is the consumate professional. Solid under the first high ball, solid under every high ball. I bet there are some sick looking Aussies and NZ supproters tonight who were backing France.

  • 48.
  • At 01:45 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Alan wrote:

Great win England.
I have an observation that may open a long debate. There has been some controversy over the match balls. If I am correct, Jonny discarded the match ball on two seperate occassions which were handed out by ball boys. Have the French Rugby Authorities tried a little ball tampering I wonder????
Food for thought!!!!!!

  • 49.
  • At 01:55 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Heraldo wrote:

To sleep per chance to dream....

The club game for the non-profeesional/semi professional is dying. My club two seasons ago had 4 teams out on a Saturday this season two. Money caused players to leave for another club in the same town.

Do we aspire to be Johhny or Lawrence? No.

Rethink from the top down or this is the last World Cup glory for England. Sorry to be sour, but we can only go so far on Johnny's boots....

  • 50.
  • At 02:13 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Pom in NZ wrote:

Fabulous effort by the boys! Totally agree with Pomme stuck in NZ (post 45). I turned the volume down on TV3 and streamed the commentary from 5Live. It's going to be a fantastic week to be English in NZ. Only wish I was in Aussie so I could really rub it in. Bring it on!

  • 51.
  • At 02:21 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Karl wrote:

I live in Australia and have to listen to whinging Aussie commentators all the time. Before the game there were clearly keen on the French. During the game it was amazingly even though they kept saying England are only kickers - even after the try - but after the game the were really cheesed off about us winning. When one former Aussie prop was asked if England had the best pack in the world he still said we were naff. Do I care? No! Brilliant game - brilliant performances! The French played the best they could and it wasn't good enough. Shaw and Kay were world class. Easter was outstanding - the first game I've seen him deliver a truly world class performance. Great tap tackle Worsley! I wish Reagan put a little less effort in talking and more in playing then he'd be even better. Good game though.

Catt was a bit poor in places though he was really smart in others. Well done Tait - good game. Sackey is still a bit lightweight for me.

We lost a couple too many turnovers and the Boks / Pumas are both good in that area. But if we tighten up there we will win. I hate to say this as I've backed the opposition each big game - maybe I'm being brainwashed by all the Aussie hype of the Anzac teams. Not doing too well so far are they?

Would love to see England Argentina final.

  • 52.
  • At 02:24 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Overjoyed wrote:

Increadible. I think the england ratings are fairly correct, dont know bout the france ones.... Cant belive the complaints about the match: it was fantastic, not pretty, not technically brilliant, but close and gutsy. Roll on the final.

  • 53.
  • At 02:31 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Matt wrote:

OK I drank a bit, but did no-one else think Sackey was bloody brilliant defensively, especially considering that was supposed to be the weak aspect of his game! Deserved more than a 6 for sure. Other than tha, fair assessments I feel, just can't wait for next weekend!

I'd have given sackey at least a 7 and tait at least an 8 apart from tht ratings are good. I'd probably say that moody was MOM for me had a great game.

I'd have given sackey at least a 7 and tait at least an 8 apart from tht ratings are good. I'd probably say that moody was MOM for me had a great game.

  • 56.
  • At 02:44 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Polemic wrote:

England won...all the polemics and rhetoric are not going to change that fact...England won.

You can waffle on as long as you like about who did this and who did that but in the end, it was the team that won the day.

I could further comment but I wont. I've played enough rugby to know that if I make a mistake others have covered for me...That's what makes England special, they play for each other.

Viva England.

  • 57.
  • At 02:49 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • UNION JACK wrote:

A scrappy game with enormous battles going on all over the pitch. Tense drama building to the last 5 minutes which then gave us the fantastic outcome we all craved. Swing low sweet chariot.
Paul Sackey's rating was inadequate. He can't be blamed for the team not creating good opportunities for him to run with the ball. He did do what he could well. Jonny is my MOM. He struggled with his kicking for most of the match. But commeth the hour...

  • 58.
  • At 02:53 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Pete Fargher wrote:

Am deliriously happy for the lads. They're now feeding off all the criticism of the last 4 years, and are on a marvellous roll. Those people who complain about lack of tries, flowing movement etc do not know rugby and have not played it.

Nervous, of course, about the final, but, hey, when Jonny really gets his boots on watch out either of the SH sides.

  • 59.
  • At 02:55 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Paolo on tour wrote:

Great win England, excellent stuff. I'm absolutely ecstatic!

Re the player ratings, I have to disagree hugely with Sackey. Agreed, he made a good joint tackle on Chabal, and is extremely quick. However he was turned over at least 3 times today, his body position seems to be all wrong going into contact, ending up on his back every time. I can't believe he is that much weaker than the opposition players that he is unable to recycle more effectively. For that reason I would be tempted to drop him for the final, shifting Tait out wide agin and bringing Hipkiss into the centres. However, barring Lewsey's injury preventing him playing, I think Ashton should definitely stick with the winning starting lineup. Hipkiss played very well, and should be give game time coming off the bench.

  • 60.
  • At 02:56 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Pete Fargher wrote:

Am deliriously happy for the lads. They're now feeding off all the criticism of the last 4 years, and are on a marvellous roll. Those people who complain about lack of tries, flowing movement etc do not know rugby and have not played it.

Nervous, of course, about the final, but, hey, when Jonny really gets his boots on watch out either of the SH sides.

  • 61.
  • At 02:58 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • j wrote:

amazing game!
had me on the edge of my seat!..
although it was an inspired effort by the englishmen, i dont think this would be enough to rattle the springbocks.

  • 62.
  • At 02:58 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • James Moyse wrote:

I'm astounded. I think I need a cardiologist to sort out my heart which has not been functioning properly since the 70th minute!

Ratings are pretty much spot on, but for me, Hipkiss was absolutely brilliant when he came on. I have to admit to being a bit vocal when the change was made, but he was fantastic. Roll on Argentina/SA. No matter what happens in the final, we've exceeded everyone's expectations, and enormous credit has to go to the players - if they can play with that much passion in the face of adversity in a major tournament, why can't the football pansies do it too?

One last comment on the style of play - I couldn't care less if it's not free-flowing, try-scoring rugby. How far did that get New Zealand? And besides, I was gripped, as every England/France fans were. It's not the death of rugby, it *is* rugby. We may not have been the most talented of teams in the tournament, but we rank alongside Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, Portugal and Argentina in terms of passion and commitment to the cause.

My only fear is that this will gloss over the 4 years of failure that preceded this world cup, but that's a discussion for another time. C'mon England!!

  • 63.
  • At 02:58 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Colin wrote:

I fail to see why you bother with these individual player ratings. Rugby is a team game, always has been always will be. It's the team effort and ethos what counts, not individual performances. Otherwise, Messrs. Cashckenko and Bollock would be leading Chelski to the top of the Premier League.

Repeat after me: sacrifice yourself for the team, sacrifice yourself for the team, sacrifice yourself for the team ... repeat ad nauseam ...


  • 64.
  • At 02:58 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Sam Tilley wrote:

I'm sorry, but isn't it the most annoying thing that england only pull it out of the bag when it matters? Brian Ashton is boring, his obsession with having fubbling Mike Catt still in the side, a much loved staple of the Woodwood era but still a boring player, why? I'm a rugby lover, i like to watch good rugby, and unfortunatly the only thing that kept me on the edge of my seat was the close score line and not the expansive exciting rugby I want to properly get behind. Still, we are in final, big woo. Play exciting rugby all the time, rugby that is something to talk about long into the night, we did invent it after all...

  • 65.
  • At 02:58 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • jon wrote:

Joe Worsley has to get a 8 or 9 if only for that tackle. Other than that the French should be ashamed of themselves. They played without any ambition. Trying to kick 50m drop goals - just embarrassing - while the fact its iconic player can't play for more than 20 minutes of international rugby tells you all you need to know about a team that lacked the style on which it's historically relied on. As for Michalak - I'd give him a minus figure. It was all over once he was on the pitch.

  • 66.
  • At 03:07 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • j wrote:

amazing game!
had me on the edge of my seat!..
although it was an in spired effort by the englishmen, i dont thin kthis would be enough to rattle the springbocks.

  • 67.
  • At 03:10 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Pom in Oz wrote:

I'm going to enjoy work on Monday!!!!! Never has working with a bunch of Australians been so much fun.

As some of the comments mention. This was not a game you'd show to a newbie to convince them how great rugby is. I don't care. I thought it was fantastic. Bring on the Boks.

...or the Pumas??!

  • 68.
  • At 03:15 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Scott Adams wrote:

Has anyone heard from David Campese?

I wonder what's happened to him. It's all very quiet hear in Australia. Sport mad country but nobody seems to be interested in the Rugby any more.

  • 69.
  • At 03:17 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Yorkie in NZ wrote:

I agree with Pomme- its been a great week to be English in NZ. We were here for the last World Cup and got tickets to the Sydney final courtesy of the AB's fans, so i'm guessing the same will be happening in Paris!The AB's may be the best during the 4 years between World cups, but when it comes down to the important 80minutes... it really helps if you're English and you're name's Jonny.Ugly rugby rules.

  • 70.
  • At 03:22 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Nathaniel jenkins wrote:

Sackey is worhty of more than a 6 considering his amazing play in defence! When france made the break and he committed to one tackle saw that the ball had be passed off then tackeld the receiver into touch before his non committed team mates had got there! SAy what you will about England but both sides proved everyone who had something to say about psychology and previous performance to say. . . In rugby it always comes down to the day not what happened last week and what mumbo jumbo is going on in players heads!

  • 71.
  • At 03:53 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • wishy wrote:

As far as I as am concerned they all deserve a 10! I was at Lens against USA and quite frankly England were Division 1 they were rubbish. I then went to the South African game not much of a change there then. Everyone put them down no hope then for what ever reason things changed and here we are England in the FINAL. Guys please do not give up but what ever you do now I think all of English Rugby is proud be English because of the way you keep going regardless of the opinions of others. Who ever comes next be positive and who knows! ENGLAND double winners?

  • 72.
  • At 05:14 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • argenspro wrote:

a sad day for rugby, this victory is a bad news for all people who love rugby. brillant ? fantastic ? you're killing me. As for me rugby's lover i hope that Puma's or Boks (whoever in fact except England)will win this worldcup for the safe of rugby and his credibility in the world. mediocrity is high with england,please no more four years

  • 73.
  • At 05:14 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Tel wrote:

What a difference from 3 weeks ago!Another top performance by the English forwards. They were, as with the Oz game, immense. Robinson was my MOM though. I thought Laporte blew it by taking off Beauxis too early. Well done chaps. Bring on the Boks or Pumas !

  • 74.
  • At 05:43 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Irish Kevo wrote:

England showed the rest of the top 8 teams that a place in the final was there for the taking for all of them if they just believed in themselves and most importantly - try to outscore the opposition - sounds simple, but NZ tried to win with style instead of doing the basics (cross field kicks on your own 22!!!), England haven't put a foot wrong since the knock out games. Recycle well, kick for position, defend with good discipline (for the most part) and score when the opportunities present themselves.
They may not be classic games - very low scores & winning with the minimal share of possesion - but still winning.
Hats off to them.

  • 75.
  • At 05:54 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • All Black Supporter wrote:

Good on England they showed grit, determination and the mental toughness to win the pressure matches and deserve their place in the final (unlike another team I could mention)Their forwards were excellent and of course Johhny boy, the only concern come final time would be the lack of back line cohesion in the midfield but we will see. I suspect South Africa will go through and that will be an interesting match for sure, again well done England.

  • 76.
  • At 05:57 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Al_Bback wrote:

It was for an Englishman or a Frenchman a tense and exciting game. I keep hearing people saying it was boring ugly rugby. Well in that case I enjoy boring ugly rugby. Sure open running games are enjoyable to watch, but open flowing rugby is what happens in between tournaments when the oppositions are less organised and more weaknesses exist. When you get to the closing stages of a tournament it is grit, determination and RESPECT for the opposition which gets you a win.

Both France and England yesterday showed for me true sporting values none of the negative slating and arrogant comments we sadly now expect from some of the Southern Hemisphere nations. The thing that really cheers me now is that all 4 teams that have made the semi's are teams that have not gobbed off about how good they are and how bad or boring the opposition are they have just got on with the job.

  • 77.
  • At 06:04 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • tim skelton wrote:

Was catt mom to ensure he starts in the final and is not replaced? his performance, apart from one or two instances, did not inspire nor did that of his replacement flood.
Watching in Greece on TV5 (French) their commentators were not happy and were very biased but at least they weren't barnes!

  • 78.
  • At 06:13 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • JK wrote:

Congratulations England - well desrved victory. Robinson superb,Moody fantastic and what an impact by Hipkiss. Johnny kicked when it mattered most - are you watching Ronan O Gara this is what real class is all about. After 2 minutes you know Michalak the Magician had left his wand at home but as a character you have to love Chabel. Well done England

  • 79.
  • At 06:15 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Brister wrote:

Watched the game here in Boulder, Colorado (home of USA Rugby). For me Robinson was MoM. He was solid under the high kicks and made a couple of breaks that looked exciting and potentially dangerous. It must be inspiring to the rest of the team to have such a solid player at the back knowing that hes great in defense and scares the hell out of the opposition with ball in hand. How can a man in his form never play again after next week?

  • 80.
  • At 06:25 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • michael foster wrote:

I thought the whole game was absolute dross from both sides.
The handling was appalling,just a complete mess.One try! complete and utter garbage.

  • 81.
  • At 06:26 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Simon Cherry wrote:

Great game. With family members living in NZ France USA and Aus I finally have something to talk back about. But having lived in SA I am a bit concerned.
Scores are irrelevant in such a team performance.
We can do this i think, but would rather face the pumas than the boks.
This was a truely great (if ugly) team performance.
Well done England.
I hope we also qualify for the Euro football !!
Simon

  • 82.
  • At 06:33 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • bob wrote:

England looked knacked at 70min. This many massive games makes me wonder if they could manage a full on 80 against SA next weekend.

  • 83.
  • At 06:43 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Keith Roberts wrote:

I must apologise to the neighbours once they come to life.

Robinson played a blinder - he seems stronger now than he was four years ago. It was a massive team effort though and its probably unfair to single him out in a real 15 man effort that never allowed the French to play.

If thats ugly, lets be ugly. See you in Paris next weekend.

  • 84.
  • At 07:28 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • EBERG wrote:

Looking forward to another game of kicking ping pong next week. Is anyone else amazed how decent sides are being sucked in this school boy game plan? I just wish somebody would pick the bloody ball up run with it and then pass it rather than hoof it up in the air. I have never been so bored.........

  • 85.
  • At 07:31 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Craig wrote:

Magic, brilliant.

I know people want flowing running rugby, so do I. But I want a team that wins even more.

Well done England, looking forward to next weekend.

What's even better about it, I live in NZ now and get to be happy around kiwi family members :)

  • 86.
  • At 07:35 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Phil Cliffe wrote:

Agree with Colin @ 65 - Team game!

I watched in Thailand along with a crowd of fellow BRITS and Irish who complained about the English yet again, as being a poor side not fit to lace the boots etc etc.

Anyway, next weeks sports quiz has the following rugby questions:

How many world cup finals have WALES played in?

Ditto Ireland?

Ditto Scotland?

Ditto France?

Or am I missing something here?

I expect my friends to get maximum points!!!

  • 87.
  • At 07:40 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • jack the cat wrote:

If Jonny had kicked to his historic percentage England would have been out of site.
Gomersall needs to stop kicking aimlessly. The England backs get very little ball but when they do their pace scares the opposition who give away pentalties at the first turn over to avoid any continuity.
sackey has had a great a couple of games - a revelation. Tait has gone from boy to man in this world cup.
Robinson easily MOM. Defensively perfect. Never gets turned over and wins a penalty in front of the posts to win England the game - After the last two worlds cups and his Lion's performances down under he now must walk into any 'world's greatest 15 ever'
Most southern hemisphere players place him there already

  • 88.
  • At 07:40 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Rob in California wrote:

Ou est le papier ?.....sorry.

Look - here I am, a proud Englander in California (lucky me). The only way I can get the rugby is to subscribe to DirectTV (think ''Sky'' - at $80 a month) then I have to subscribe to Setanta Sports - a specialist DirectTV channel ($15 extra a month) and then I have to pay-per-view on Setanta for each game....$25 a go. At times like this I recall why I used to love the BBC.

On to the game - we were magnificent. So it wasn't pretty - but I have noticed they do not inscribe that next to your name on the cup if you win (doesn't say ''1987 - New Zealand - forgot to choke this year'' - for example.

Before I go - one more thing. Watching the rugby on Setanta is exceedingly painful at times - mainly at half time and after the game. I am grateful we have it but we have Irish commentators and a panel made up of nobodies - Neil (who?) Francis, Cieran Fitzgerald and Matt 'the coach' Williams. (okay Cieran Fitzgerlad is a somebody - but in my book he is now officially a nobody after todays comments).

You have to wonder if the people watched the same game and the same tournament ? Why do they hate the English so much? After the game the panel mediator asked for their opinion and that official nobody Neil Francis described it - in his opening statement - as a 'tragedy for rugby'. Neil - YOU are the tragedy !

There is nothing like objective commentary from a panel...and this was nothing like objective commentary from a panel !! (Did you know that ''at 6-5, if England had not scored a try they would not have been in the game''......hello...earth to Setanta panel, are you reading me ?

Not wanting to be outdone, that Australian coaching leviathan Matt Williams (yes, my tongue is pushing a hole in my cheek) got into the act of belitting the English performance. However he struggles to string more than two cohesive thoughts or arguments together which probably explains a lot about Scottish rugby success under his tutelage (actually, thinking about it, it probably made no difference !). He also needs a haircut but he needs a job to pay for that I expect.

To his credit the mediator (Daire O'Brien I think it is - also Irish) called them to order and even mocked them for daring to suggest that the referee was at fault - ''the first sign of the desperate is to blame the referee'' he opined...good for you Daire.

Not to be put off, Neil Francis then dared to suggest that a conspiracy theory was afoot because a South African referee had been allowed to referee the game and he had somehow wangled an English victory because they were the worse team and the one South Africa would prefer to play in the final. Daire stepped in once again......I think he feared the show's credibility ratings were about to plummet..this is after all sport and not the X-Files !

Oh dear - it actually became funny to watch it.

Anyway - off to the final next week....another $25 for the pleasure....a small price to pay. Trying to get my Californian brethren excited is a struggle but we'll enjoy the day and if we win, and lets face it - South Africa or Argentina - its going to be a nail biter, it will be a beautiful thing.

I wonder what the sour puss, jealous, short-sighted nobodies on the Setanta panel will have to say? Actually on second thoughts...I care not a jot....as I recall Ireland failed to get past the first hurdle and that is a sweet thought on its own.

Come on the boys !

  • 89.
  • At 07:45 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • John Parker wrote:

All this talk about ugly rugby is quite strange for me. I bet, to a man, the All Blacks would take that victory to have progressed to the final.
As said on BBC World "beauty is in the eye of the World Cup holder".

BRING IT ON.

  • 90.
  • At 07:46 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Julian Manning wrote:

Comment 66 knows sweet FA about history or rugby. If he had played the game at any level he woud know that rubgy has almost never been simply about flowing moves, nice to watch as they may be. It's all about guts, determination, teamwork and the ability to out think and out manouver your opponents, whoever they might be. If they wish to play in a certain way, then shut it down. Any team that wants to beat England now will have to meet us on our own terms. SA made us play their game two weeks ago. Not next time. If you don't like the intellectual nitty gritty of sport watch football, or big brother. England have played to win, not entertain, since the SA game. Sport is played for mere entertainment sometimes - but to paraphrase a man who knew better, it's far more important than that.

  • 91.
  • At 08:02 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • AndyinCanada wrote:

Hi folks, watched from Calgary Canada. What a game. Will be wearing the red rose to bed with pride this evening! The commentary we had in Canada almost accused the English of cynnical cheating. Alas no Canada! The French just got caught out and kicked too long or too short, playing into the English game. As for our England team, half of whom should be in the retirement home, 30s are the new 20s. Nice one lads. Viva La Anglaise!

  • 92.
  • At 08:03 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Mike Towl wrote:

Re-comments 26 & 28, the commentators. Totally agree, woeful! More suited to commentating the World Rubbick Cube Championships. Hang on though, don't the Beeb have the six-nations? Butler, Moore, Cotter, Davies, Healey and an assortment of gym-slipped giggling girly interviewers. Hmm. Must remember to put new batteries in the flicker, don't want to be caught with the volume to high. This lot annoys the cat.
As for the other comments, dead right. Billy Whizz was, is, a class apart.

  • 93.
  • At 08:03 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • GaryLeroy wrote:

Don't know if there really is an improvement from when SA beat England 36-0. All they have done is beat Australia and if you live in the southern hemisphere you know they are a team on the decline. They are presently living on a reputation. Yes England have played with more intensity. But in terms of skill and go forward i dodn't see much. France should have won but kicked too much whilst it was obvious every time they ran @ England it seemed they would score. Same thing happened against Austraila. SA and NZ are the best side in world rugby. The AB had an off day. So unless the Boks have an off day. Man for Man South Africa are better. And they are far better tasctical kickers than France. And their rush defence and counters from turnovers are phenomenal. So we'll see 20th October.

  • 94.
  • At 08:10 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • craig wrote:

What a game! Hats off to both teams for super intense affair! I agree with the ratings. It was a superb team performance. It was particularly encouraging to see the youngsters, Tait, Hipkiss and Flood look so comfortable. If you had to single out key performers, I would have to say Moody, Shaw, Wilko and Robinson were all top drawer but the whole team were really excellent last night.

In fact, it was quite funny as in France, TF1 (their equivalent to BBC1), thought the English players were going to tire and the French would nick it in the last 10 minutes but it was completely the opposite. We controlled the possession in the vital last 10 minutes which is why we're in the final again. Hats off to Wilkinson for another big game performance!

As you can guess for me, a Brit living and working in France, the week has been a little bit of a nightmare! One of the reasons why I was hoping for the Blacks as sometimes the French can be very, very heavy! I'm going to have a very interesting Monday but really I don't care about getting my own back, I'm just thinking about next weekend! C'MON ENGLAND!

I had a feeling France had their lucky game (yellow card, Carter went off, conversion in off the sticks, forward pass to Michalak) against the Blacks and their luck was about to run out. We had the run of the ball for the try but we never looked back. We gave a few silly penalties away (although totally disagree with the 3rd awarded to France). However, we tackled like tigers and our forwards took over the match after 70 minutes. You had the feeling it was ours even if the French had a few dangerous bursts. Our tackling was immense and we were starting to gain lots of ground and creating space for Wilko!


You really have to write this down to appreciate the real value of what the English XV did so here goes: THEY BEAT THE FRENCH IN FRANCE IN THE WC SEMI-FINAL! The superb photo (hats off to the photographer!) of Wilko's match winning drop goal attempt with Chabal looking on is now my wallpaper! However, please don't dwell on this! You're another match from going down in history as the only side to have retained the WC! WE CAN DO THIS!

  • 95.
  • At 08:18 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • moo wrote:

moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

  • 96.
  • At 08:23 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • babbo_umbro wrote:

Not pretty but a fabulous contest. Tait and Sackey have really come of age during the competition, think they deserve special mention.

How can the French organisers offer Wilkinson a ball that is not one of the officicial match balls? Twice? Stinks.

  • 97.
  • At 08:24 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • One Legged Ed wrote:

I'm left feeling that the better team lost, but the team who wanted it more won. Good thing rugby is a game that needs heart and body.

  • 98.
  • At 08:26 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Barrel wrote:

Agree with post 26. The game would be far more pleasureable to watch without Stuart Barnes drivvle to listen too. In 2003 England won because they had numerous players (Thompson, Johnson, Hill, Back, Wilkinson, Greenwood & Robinson) that were the best in the world in their position. In 2007 they don't have one player who can make that claim (although Shaw is in the from of his life) so they play as a team and for each other. Gomorsall's rating was generous, pass was off as well as his atrocious kicking. Would have given Corry higher - The man was the Press's scapegoat for Andy Robinson being a woeful coach but he has carried on and done whatever has been asked of him. Doing the same job that Hill did four years ago - quiet, effective dog work that goes unnoticed. Moody had another good game but England paid the price at the breakdown for not having a genuine openside, on another day with that much possession France would have scored 35 points. One last point - "Catt sound in defence", please tell me you are joking. Ashton must make a decision for the final. Defensive Player: Farrell. Attacking Player: Barkley. Catt is neither. Also Hipkiss must be in the mix after his performance as sub - does any centre stay on their feet better ?

  • 99.
  • At 08:26 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Craig Comerfrord wrote:

RE unnatractive rugby.
I think New Zealand played the most attractive rugby in a passionate game against France.
BUT THEY LOST. They spurned enough drop chances to have run our comfortable winners because they were unable to not think about their game other than scoring tries.
Whilst yesterdays game was not as attractive, I thought England were particularly good at recovering from their errors in handling. That in itself was great to watch.

  • 100.
  • At 08:26 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • craig wrote:

After having read a few comments on "ugly" rugby, I feel obliged to reply!

We are no longer in the 80s where Mr Campese jinks past 4 players to slot it under the posts. Campese would not have the same impact in today's game! The players are bigger, faster, meaner and yes, professional! They get paid to play the game and the expectations are high.

The quality of both sides yesterday didn't permit an open attacking game. The French and English teams both are very well organised, disciplined and strong defensively and cover the width of the ground with relative ease. However, "ugly" rugby. There were some superb bursts from both sides and tackling and kicking represent a very important part of the game. It's not just about going over the line!

Personally, I prefer a tense hard-fought contest like last night than a really open free-scoring affair (Fidji-S. Africa for example).

  • 101.
  • At 08:29 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • john wrote:

As usual the foot of johnnie and you all think of glory Sud Afrika x 14

  • 102.
  • At 08:29 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • danny t wrote:

i think that the england scrum had the advantage of the front five of France and should have scored from 5 yrds when Easter lost control, a rare mistake on the night as they kept a very good French back row quiet.
A scrappy, tight, nervy game and I hope for more of the same next week. I was impressed by Hipkiss who added some directness and stood up well in the tackle, should start next week.

  • 103.
  • At 08:31 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Alex wrote:

First, I would like to congratulate our "best enemies" as we call you in France. I'm not convinced that you deserved your place into the finals but France didn't derserve it...definitely. I'm so sorry for my English friends to write that but, I really hope that England won't win the Cup. I mean what a poor rugby, we would be back to the past with a boring rugby. Today, England is unable to produce a thrilling, exciting rugby. Passing is so so poor. Really, you have to be proud of your team: it's just unbelievable to make its way to the finals with this kind of rugby. They did their best, for sure. So, let's go South Africa! (Good luck England!)

  • 104.
  • At 08:33 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Rugby lover wrote:

Interesting contrast yesterday, England & France playing aerial tennis, kicking the ball away with gay abandon. With one try to show for 80 minutes of effort.

Rugby league grand final with the two premier teams in England, keeping possession & delivering exciting free flowing rugby with six tries.

I know where the real entertainment was!

  • 105.
  • At 08:37 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Oicsdontexist wrote:

Thankyou all black supporter and Al_Bback for your perceptive ad unbiased comments. Other writers are not right to say it doesn't matter about our backs and try scoring. It would be nice and will come but it is important to win and play to your strengths as England have done. Clearly writers who criticise us for this have never played the game, dont understand the game and have never 'won' a world cup. They should realise this is Rugby UNION and not the sevens version either i.e. proper scrums and real forwards. Please go and watch LEAGUE if you dont like either of these! I am concerned though that this unexpected success will let Francis Baron (and PLR) off the hook for the past four years

  • 106.
  • At 08:42 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Ray Phillips wrote:

Great game for the cognescenti. Well thought out tactics well excuted. I love this attritional stuff. JR plainly outstanding player on the field. Not much between the teams but England could and maybe should have won more comfortably.

  • 107.
  • At 08:44 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • steve wrote:

Being a pom in Oz.. i can't wait to go to work on Monday morning! Laporte was the undoing of France. The caveman in at second row? Michalak on for Beauxis, and taking Betsen off? French suicide!!

They were a chance up until then. England now know how to win, they are a team that can grind out a win.

My last point is re Wilkinson, I am sure that any international team would love to have the marketing power of Jonny. He is responsible for alot of the success of Rugby in England and indeed World Rugby.

Can you see Matt Dunning on the front cover of Men's Health.... maybe Famyard Animals weekly!!

  • 108.
  • At 08:54 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • paulsteven wrote:

10 out of 10 for team play and conviction!

Not beautiful rugby for me, but given half a chance Robinson, Tait and others did well with ball in hand and looked more likely to score than France did. Once the self-belief is there the ability can be used. I think we're capable of hurting teams more with our running game than we have.

Sackey has got to go into contact better - too much turnover from him - we were a little lucky the French didn't get more payback from that.

I don't think England need fear either the Boks or the Pumas but they've got to get their kicking sorted out - a couple of reasonable kicks from Gomarsall and Catt, as well as Jonny, but I really think we have a lot more in us.

Good luck next weekend!

  • 109.
  • At 09:06 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Allen wrote:

Englands last two semi final wins have not been pretty.

9-6 against Scotland in 91

The Wilkinson masterclass of goal kicking against France in 03 (did we score a try?)

The Final games have never been high scoring affairs. In fact the last Final was the first were a try had been scored since 91.

  • 110.
  • At 09:23 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • myownpetard wrote:

Maybe the game wasn't a classic, but it was just wonderful...........

How games can be determined by single events! Two inspirational moments in defence - courtesy of messrs Sackey and Worsley - have now seen us through the quarter finals and into the final. Hats off to them!

OK so, JW may not be at the top of his place kicking game - that will return - but maybe in a perverse way it makes the others realise that it's a team game and they can't just rely on Jonny.

  • 111.
  • At 09:26 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Marco wrote:

As a last 10 minute cliffhanger that was brilliant. As a game of rugby that was absolutely rubbish. Everyone should drop at least 1 point in the ratings. The amount of fumbles and turnover ball due to mistakes and not good opposition play was very disappointing, as was the horrendously poor tactical kicking a la SA game.
Every Eng backline attack crabbed across the field apart from a couple of incisive broken play movements (Robbo & Hipkiss). Something has to be done here as we're never gonna score except from penalties, drop goals & freak bounces and you can't rely on these playing a more savvy, consitent team like SA (prob).
BTW Traille has been so unfairly blamed for the try. Any other bounce and he'd probably have been fine in his positioning.
As an England fan I'm pleased but as a rugby fan I feel very down.

  • 112.
  • At 09:27 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • grumpy old man wrote:

Sackey deserves Either a 7 or 8. His positioning was superb throughout, his defensive effort immense, and the few times he got the ball he presented it well when tackled. It's not his fault that the rest of the team didn't work him some space to run in.

  • 113.
  • At 09:31 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Nickhfc wrote:

On the subject of the non-match balls: we were told during the week about the 6 match balls (numbered) and how JW was now satsified with them and his kicking. Yet during the match, somehow, another ball was thrown to him to kick (he noticed and threw it back). Where did it come from? Did he miss two other kicks with 'non-match balls'. Very suspicious if you're a conspiracy theorist.

If Lewsey is not injured, Mike Catt should not play in the final. His passing is panicky and kicking inaccurate. Hipkiss looked v lively.

Swing low......

  • 114.
  • At 09:32 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • orang wrote:

Sour grapes from all the nations that are not in the final!!!.

England are in the finals.

NZ & Australia may have played the most expansive & "Attractive" rugby against poor oppostion but when they came up against France and England, attractive rugby couldn't be reproduced!!!

The answer is simple: When rugby is played at the highest level with high stakes, ATTRACTIVE rugby does not come into the equation.
The final will no doubt be a tight affair and I doubt if there will be attractive rugby on display but all English fans will be on the edge of our seats.

  • 115.
  • At 09:33 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Eddy wrote:

After awarding the whole team 9 and 10s last week think the ratings a bit harsh today.

What a performance.

  • 116.
  • At 09:37 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Bill wrote:

Man of the match was Paul Robinson, just walking out on to the pitch, he seemed to have such a swagger, and looked unbeatable, when the game started he took every high ball, and that run in second half was superb, though not good enough for ITV to show it again.

  • 117.
  • At 09:40 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • David wrote:

I am a little surprised at the rating for Jonny Wilkinson. I watched the game in a packed bar in Southern Ireland and although the verbal abuse, and delight at a likely French win was evident from the Irish, they all stood and celebrated a fine Wilkinson performance. OK on the day a few kicks went astray but his overall performance was magical. A clear leader on the day in both tackles and attitude. When a player was needed in the thick of the action it was Jonny who lifted his game to beat the French. A deserved 8+ would have been a more realistic rating

  • 118.
  • At 09:42 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Jim wrote:

The key was that no-one played badly or made bad mistakes - e.g. Tait's defence was great and for effort everyone was 10 out of 10.

I note England have the defensive coach that Ireland disposed of ?? - maybe he should get a rating as England were defending for long long periods in the match?

Barnes' commentating was bizarre - I couldn't believe we were watching the same match (I listened on 5 Live last week). France certainly won the first half in terms of play - but were only a point up; in the end without Lewsey's try the score was 9 - 9 which on territory and play might have been generous to England.

But England ended on a high - I can agree with the comment above that they looked knackered but they had run France's tank dry so the last ten minutes weren't a problem at all.

With regard to the ratings they are fine this time. In attack something wasn't quite right at 10 and 12 but then Betsen was playing out of his skin. One of these days Tait at 13 will make that clean break and when he does he will be great for England for years to come.

For France they must be wondering how they had all that possession but weren't able to get more points. If they had attempted the drop-goals a bit closer in it might have been different but the rest was down to fantastic defensive play by England.


  • 119.
  • At 09:43 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • David wrote:

Solid but not good enough to ensure a win next week. Too many turnovers allowed because the forwards were not there in time, too many long kicks which did not create either try-scoring opportunities, territorial gains or pressure and some careless penalties (but relatively few as compared to the early matches). Come on for one final push - fix these errors and we have a chance.

  • 120.
  • At 09:53 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • oligold11 wrote:

Super performance, Jason Robinson was excellent, and when Joe Worsley came on he was superb. Excellent defensive display, and we took our chances when they finally came to us.
I think Sackey deserved more than a 6, because he made a few excellent tackles, and generally performed well.
On the French side, i thought Dussatoir was excellent, and was by far their best forward. I would have given him an 8

  • 121.
  • At 10:01 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • CJ wrote:

Gommarsal - outstanding again

i) saved 2 French scores
ii) superb box kick for our score

MOM for me.

  • 122.
  • At 10:05 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Chris Squires wrote:

This world cup is so tight it has distilled down to two decisions. a)Sackey's 3 on 1 against the Aussies where he could be hero or zero and made the right decision (guess?) and b)worsley tap tackle yesterday. If a) hadn't been made, b) couldn't have happened.
On such fine margins are the great separated from the also-rans. We would have been home by the quarters but for a). Only problem is if we win..... Sir Brian Aston? Hmmm luckiest "Sir" ever if that becomes the case.

  • 123.
  • At 10:15 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Duncan wrote:

It's amazing how differently people can see the same game (allowing for some bitter anti-English prejudices). I settled down to watch a battle - guys putting everything they had physically on the line. We got that. There's an honesty and beauty in seeing someone give their all in any sport or any situation, and in rugby it often demands pure power and aggression. If those who are critical hadn't realised this before watching the game, they need find another sport, for to be so begrudging to two sets of players who gave and risked more than almost any of us would, only highlights their own shortcomings, not those of either side. I thought it was a magnificent game played by two incredible sets of players.

  • 124.
  • At 10:26 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Michael Moll wrote:

I think Brian Ashton should be congratulated with the supurb effort he has done with his team. As a whole the forwards were very good again, strong, determined and aggresive, giving a good delivery of ball to the backs.
The defence was as good, if not better than last week.
Keep up the progress in the team and "Bill" will stay where he belongs.

  • 125.
  • At 10:26 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • nick evans wrote:

yes congrats to england best team won on the night,but very poor rugby by france i,m afraid they played into englands hand.

so will it be south africa or argentina?lets hope its south africa for a good game of rugby.

so how are england going to turn round 36 - 0 from a month ago?sorry but england dont deserve to win the world cup playing boring rugby,kick and drive havent the backs got any talent???

  • 126.
  • At 10:27 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • cavan wrote:

You have to search very hard on the Aussi web-sites to find any news of Englands outstanding performance!!

  • 127.
  • At 10:27 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Ed wrote:

Largely accurate ratings, but I think you are generous to Easter. Our tight five pumelled the French at scrum time, and significantly Easter fouled up his ball control (for the second week in a row) as it looked like a push over try was on the cards. I think you are also being generous to their props who were, when the pressure came on near to their line, not good enough.

  • 128.
  • At 10:28 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • joy wrote:

does anyone know who was man of the match last night?!

  • 129.
  • At 10:29 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • John Adamson wrote:

Just an extra word on Jason Robinson.Largely agree with the ratings but would give Robinson 9: not only did he field difficult high balls all night, kicked well and made that electric break referred to,but it was another of his incisive breaks that created the field position leading directly to the penalty that gave England the lead and indirectly to the killer drop goal.

  • 130.
  • At 10:32 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • miltonf wrote:

Couldn't agree more with post 90. Been toying with the idea of subscribing to Setanta but dont think i'll bother now. Think they need to realise if they want a bigger audience they need to move away from the one eyed anti English panels they keep putting together. Nothing against controversial comments (as you get with RTE on the football) but needs to be balanced. As for Gary Leroy in post 95, get the impression he thinks SA are in the final already!! Think the one thing to learn from this world cup is don't count your chickens. Come on the Pumas

  • 131.
  • At 10:32 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Jon wrote:

Thought Corry's rating was generous. He was anonymous again - would still prefer to see Rees in for the final, and let Moody play 6. It's his true position.

As for the French ratings, very harsh on Elissalde. Best French player on the park by a mile, and if Beauxis hadn't kicked away possession as much, and too deep to players who were very comfortable under the high ball, France would have won on the back of his performance.

  • 132.
  • At 10:34 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • john in spain wrote:

Once again I feel that Paul Sackey has been seriously underated.
In these columns he has previously been slated and his defensive capabilities derided. Yesterday he was as solid as a rock, taking one high ball beautifully and making tackle after tackle.
But surely a wing needs quality centres who have the ability to create a little bit of space for the men outside them. England's centres have many fine qualities but their creativity is sadly lacking. Sackey has scored four tries and not one of them has come from a pass from the centres.
Come on you guys, I'm a Scot who has enjoyed seeing England upset the odds and play with such collective spirit, but as a former wing who had to endure match after match playing outside people who could not pass if their lives depended on it get off Sackeys back and give him the praise he deserves.

  • 133.
  • At 10:35 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Jez wrote:

Ref comment 95: Gary, so you reckon every time Australia and France ran at England they looked like scoring - fair point, only they didn't which is down to great defence, which is part of the game. As a coach myself I ask players to create and exploit space. What England did was close down those spaces in a rearguard action that has never been seen before in RWC history (and as much as I dont rate Joe Worsley my hat goes off to that tackle!!)
Point 2: Why do we need a MOM? The whole point about England is that they are a team, they haven't relied on one superstar which is where France, Australia and NZ have gone wrong. SA and Argentina don't rely on stars either, they are teams too!
Point 3: Stuart Barnes - he's actually a pretty perceptive commentator. I might not always agree with all he says, but he does often speak the truth and isn't afraid to say what he thinks plus he is certainly not biased to any team. Now imagine if this was on BBC, you'd have Eddie Butler (apprently there are only Welsh teams worth watching) and Jerry Guscott (useless). Brian Moore is great comedy value but that is about it.

  • 134.
  • At 10:35 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Mike Towl wrote:

Sorry to write twice in a day to your blog but I have to ask the question, what are all these antipodeans doing contributing. This is the RWC final approaching. What's it got to do with them?

  • 135.
  • At 10:35 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Samantha Taylor wrote:

I am not an expert I watch rugby because I enjoy it. I can not understand all this nonsense about kicking spoiling the game. Historically a try did not give you any points it was so there was a TRY at kicking for goal. The proper name is 'rugby football'.It seems to me that the problem is sour grapes and very large chips on shoulders. Come on England you can do it!!!

  • 136.
  • At 10:40 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Mark, Paris wrote:

4 words

ON EST EN FINALE

Take your sour grapes and chew on them for another four years you French posters (yes another four years).

The guys around me in the stadium accepted what happened. The best team won. England in the final, French home.

They shook hands, congratulated and wished us luck for the final. Dignity in defeat.

Amazing Amazing Amazing

All the people who go on about the running game forget one aspect of rugby which is what makes it such a great game-tackling. The tackling of France in the NZ game was immense and so was that of England in the last two games. Personally I prefer to watch the tacking than the running which is why I've enjoyed England's last two games.

The tackle by Stevens on Chabal and then Worsleys tap tackle were fantastic. Lets hope for more in the final

  • 138.
  • At 10:43 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Dave Mason wrote:

Battlers 14

Bottlers 9

And still the World Champions

To all the Kiwis and the Aussies
4 More Years

Come on the Pumas

  • 139.
  • At 10:44 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • GAVIN wrote:

If anyone puts England down through doubt or disbelief then I have this to say to you =

How dare you disbelieve in the World cup winners!

How dare you put such a great country down!

How dare you even think such loonaticall thoughts!

If you are not through then you are not worthy!

If you did not qualify then you are incapable!

Glory be to ENGLAND and its people.

Glory be to the great and worldly known English spirit!

The gods once again shine on our souls and see our hard working spirit of life.

Bring on the final!!!

  • 140.
  • At 10:48 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Vince wrote:

I totally agree with Barnes being shocking at calling the game. Two of kicks that Wilko missed were not exactly straight forward(one right onthe touch line, the other 5m in his own half!)but Barnes consistently stated how poorly Wilko was playing! The tackles he made all night were unbelieveable so too was his rucking. As for taking the pressure shots when it mattered, he showed that he is one of the top 3 Fly halfs in the world after being injured for the best part of 3 years! Of course he does not make the England team and of course he alone is not responsible for the England victory.But i do think that if wasn't playing then England would not be playing in a final next week. As a Welshman i can only dream of having somebody of his class in our backline.

  • 141.
  • At 10:48 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Tom Andrews wrote:

Edge of the emotional seat stuff by the end I was reduced to patriotic tears...absolutely brilliant England...fantastic performance though brutally ugly, but the result is all that counts...a world cup final place.
Chabal got it right when he was interviewed after the match ..'England didn't win, we lost it'
80 minutes from absolute greatness, but whatever happens the boys have done us proud lets hope that the government take something out of this and set up more rugby facilities get more into the game and promote it as a sport for all.
Come on next week, whoever we play....England can do it!!!!

  • 142.
  • At 10:49 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Toddie wrote:

Heart attack? Almost, I watched it in hospital on oxygen with only one lung.
Ratings ok though Sackey has to present better ball, we cannot afford to turn it over.
The aim of rugby is to score more points than the opposition in 80 minutes (not 70 Monsieur Traille!) and if the opposition cannot prevent this, then tough! It was attritional rugby (watch sevens or league if you don't like this) and the French chose to join in rather than play the 'flair' game, so tough again!
I didn't believe at the tournament start, but could it be?

  • 143.
  • At 10:55 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Dave Mason wrote:

Well Done England you have made the English Nation proud,
as to all the sour grapes from the Aussies and Kiwis 4 more years boys back to the Basketball and forward passes, coming in from the side obstruction spear tackles AKA The TRI Nations/, We might let you join the 6 Nations one Day After Argentina and Fiji of course,
More power to Northen Hemisphere Rugby, Oh and in 2011 We will send our Best Team.

  • 144.
  • At 10:58 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Ryan Kittendorf wrote:

Tait had a storming game - his defence was supurb, didnt miss a tackle all night and put some big ones in.

Gommarsal has been the english player of the tournament for me so far, an outstanding link between forwards and backs and controlling the game well!!

Very impressed with Hipkiss when he came on too, stayed on his feet for ages when being tackled!! Bring on next week!!

  • 145.
  • At 11:00 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • cb wrote:

Well if you think pompous Barnes is bad (he is !), be grateful you do not have to listen to Paul Dickinson on Star Sports: gets NOTHING right and spends most of his time correcting mistakes.

  • 146.
  • At 11:07 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • craig wrote:

Bad, bad, bad sport - comment 124! I don't know how anybody can claim Brian Ashton as lucky if he wins the WC with the preparation he's had! C'mon give the guy a break! We're in the final of the WC and we look very, very good! In a relatively short space of time, it's an incredible job he's managed to do in creating such a solid side.

I tend to agree with a comment on the Aussies / NZ. They look good against weak teams but they were both made to look like normal sides against England and France.

I know rugby league quite well and think it's a decent game but I find it a lot less entertaining by a long distance than rugby union.

It's also interesting to see outside of the U.K., how many people have been deceived my mis-placed, biased commentary. TF1 (France) wasn't great (we have a football comentator doing the rugby and thanks to TF1, we've missed a hatful of important games in the group stages) but we have Thierry La Croix as co-commentator, who keeps it justified.

  • 147.
  • At 11:08 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • freddie wrote:

gd game by england


south africa will win the world cup.

  • 148.
  • At 11:13 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Duke of Wellington wrote:

I guess it was hard for you to see so well from the crowd. You failed to notice / mention some great tackling and safe hands from Sackey. He's a rock!

  • 149.
  • At 11:17 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Mark-wrights wrote:

It is frustrating to read comments that constantly refer to English rugby being dull. Put yourself into the shoes of ANY player in ANY sport EVER (with the possible exception of basketball which is for show-offs). When a player has a chance to make an impact I guarantee you they are not thinking "well I was going to take the contact and set up a ruck to facilitate the drop goal we've just busted a gut for for the last 5 minutes but on second thoughts that's a bit dull...I think I'll do a cartwheel then pass the ball behind my back. That'll entertain the folks at home." If you want drama watch soaps. If you want to watch rugby, watch it and don't moan that you aren't always on the edge of your seat. If you can't grasp the game well enough to find a brutal forward contest interesting that's your loss and may I say, a reflection of your ignorance of good rugby. [fair scores for all I think]

  • 150.
  • At 11:24 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • james wrote:

Who cares if it was a ugly game. England were written off by people after the SA match and weren't meant to get past the group stage!

I would have given Sackey at least a 7, if not more, and Tait an 8. They have both been underrated in the last two matches. They both dealt very well with what they were given and cleaned up a lot of the loose ball.

Hipkiss also played very well after coming on for Lewsey and made it very difficult for the French midfield.

MOM for me has to be either Moody for the forwards, another great game for him, or, for the backs, Robinson, great darting runs and breaks from him.

Well done England.

  • 151.
  • At 11:24 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

I have to admit to being a little bit fed up with Stuart Barnes and his style of commentating. I have always perceived him to be a little bitter about his experience with England as the no.2 choice for flyhalf. He doesn't seem to miss an opportunity to criticise England and individual players. Is it just me?

  • 152.
  • At 11:29 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • joe guiseppi wrote:

Cause france were soo EXCITING!!!! all they did was up and under after up and under!!!!!

  • 153.
  • At 11:39 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Pete in Portugal wrote:

Tremendous display from a tremendous team - what can you say. My heart murmur is now a heart orchestra. Love the boys' efforts but why does Sackey constantly look "pedestrian". Yes he did take out Chabal but walk into him not ran, and with the help of another player. He's done some great things but please Paul, hit them a bit harder in the tackles.
I'm still stunned but with a huge smile on my face.

  • 154.
  • At 11:44 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • kjfrazer wrote:

Re:No 22

Not from the southern hemisphere by any chance are you? Don't worry, you can probably sell your 'dead cert' final ticket on ebay.

  • 155.
  • At 11:44 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Stu Peters wrote:

I hear you Rob (comment 90), here in Canada, we pay Eastlink $100+ for the channels, $15 extra for Setanta and $25 for the game. THEN you have to watch the sour Irish plonkers belittle the English team, insult the referee, etc., etc. I was astounded at their utter refusal to give any credit to the worthy winners of yesterday's game.

Sore losers or what? Setanta, will get no more $$ from me after next week's final. Well, not for another 4 years anyway.

Credit where it's due, as an ex-scrum half I was delighted with Gomersall's chip ahead that resulted in the try, he must have been happy to have caught his opposite number in possession once or twice too. Under-rated player imho.

  • 156.
  • At 11:47 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Tim Gallwey wrote:

How can Elissalde get such a good rating? He consistently messed around behind the scrum and maul/ruck for so long losing any chance of quick ball. This is a fault with many scrum halves these days e.g. Stringer. What are they doing? Then on one occasion when he sgould have done it, and would have had two England players offside, he didn't. He must take the blame for a lot of the ineffectiveness of the French backline despite the dominance of the French pack in broken play.

  • 157.
  • At 11:52 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • kjfrazer wrote:

To all those jealous individuals who harp on about 'ugly' and 'boring' rugby. There is nothing sweeter or more attractive in a knock-out competition than actually winning and progressing to the next stage. Ask the All Blacks if they would swap 'flair' rugby for a place in the final and I think we would know the answer. Ditto Australia and France. Maybe if said teams placed a bit more emphasis on the bump and grind of winning rugby instead of showboating the comments would be more valid. It's one thing to mock and jeer when a team is being hammered all over the pitch but when they are actually winning AND in the final you really have to examine what drives you to make these remarks. Jealousy is a terrible affliction. If you're that petty-minded start watching football instead.

  • 158.
  • At 11:52 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • spooner wrote:

125 kick and drive?
Just read some interesting stats, no 10s kicking from hand in the 2007 RWC:
JW 35%
Dan Carter 48%
Butch James & Lionel Beauxis 42%
Cold stats may not always tell the full story but it does seem that some people have selective memories.

  • 159.
  • At 11:54 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Maeve wrote:

Yet again the team who do not play rugby win the game. Fair play to the english, but as a neutral fan I found it quite boring. Hoping the match today is a little more exciting and would bet on whatever team win today to win the whole thing.

  • 160.
  • At 11:58 AM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • jacko wrote:

what the hell is Marshmellow Tentacles on about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!comment 22. (Unfortunately it was another dire advert for world rugby).
It was a fantastic game and all the players on the pitch gave it there all, i've played in a semi final game like that one where you have to sweat blood for every yard, so know what a great achievement it was
So anyone who's anyone will agree that our team has the passion and pride to take it all the way.
You can have the best team in the world but with no passion your going nowhere but for a early shower.
Prehaps "Marshmellow Tentacles" is a Aussy, french or a jock!!!
Come on the lads

  • 161.
  • At 12:02 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Robert wrote:

Agree that this was not the best game of rugby, but who cares, Just look at the score board, that is what counts at the end of the day, we beat France and now have the chance to be the first country to win back to back World Cups.

  • 162.
  • At 12:05 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Rob wrote:

simply amazing, we are in the world cup final! so very happy. The joy is as unexpected as it is wonderful. Do not care one bit about boring rugby comments, couldnt care less what anyone else thinks about it, did greece worry about their style of football during euro 2002?

just thought id also say about comment 104, if rugby league is such an exciting and superior sport to union why is it that the union is prefered by the vast majority of the world? there must be a reason why millions apon millions of people watch union and not league. the vast majority of league is simply pick up ball, run 10 yards, get tackled, wriggle on the floor like a mental, put ball between legs, repeat. do i sound like a bit harsh and union biased? probably but at its best union is such a better game these days and league is glorified backs practice.

  • 163.
  • At 12:06 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Matt wrote:

Great performance from England. The last 10 minutes were breathtaking. But one thing I don’t get is why a player who gives needless penalties away, not once but twice, by seemingly not understanding the basic rules of the game is on the pitch? Giving the opposition what could so easily have been 3 match winning points for going in on the side should never happen for the simple reason that players who do such stupid things shouldn’t be on the pitch to start with.

  • 164.
  • At 12:09 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • eberg wrote:

Some of the comments on here a bordering on racism, why can you not enjoy your victories without belittling other nations? I was in a pub last night watching the game and to see the way people reacted was quite frankly embarrassing. You can keep the world cup as far as i am concerned, you could learn a thing or two about sporting behaviour and dignity from the French. We accept this type of behaviour in football, it seems that the English hoardes are now bringing in to rugby as well, what a shame......

  • 165.
  • At 12:19 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Jonathan Ellis wrote:

A retrospective of the overall World Cup records of every nation to have ever reached the quarter-finals, so far. Sorted in the following order:
- most wins.
- if equal on wins, most 2nd places.
- if equal on 2nd places, most 3rd places.
- if equal on 3rd places, most 4th places
- if equal on all of the above, most quarter-final appearances.
- if equal on all of the above, head-to-head matches between the nations.

1: Australia: Winners '91, '99. Runners up '03. Semis '87 (4th). Quarters, '95 and '07.

2: NZ: Winners '87. Runners up '95. Semis '91 (3rd), '99 (4th), '03 (3rd). Quarters, '07.

3: England: Winners '03. Runners up '91. Finalists '07 (yet to play). Semis '95 (4th). Quarters, '87 and '99.

(If England win in 2007, they will jump to being exactly equal with Australia's overall record, but go ahead of them on head-to-head matches by a 3-1 margin. If they lose the final to South Africa, they will remain in third - falling behind South Africa's second victory, but jumping ahead of New Zealand by virtue of having been runners-up more often. If they lose the final to Argentina, they will still leapfrog New Zealand to second place for that reason.)

4: South Africa: Winners '95. Semis '99 (3rd), '07 (yet to play). Quarters '03. Did not compete, '87 and '91.

(If South Africa win the World Cup, they will jump to second place. If they do not win, they will remain in fourth behind New Zealand, no matter whether they are runners-up or losing semi-finalists, and no matter what the result of the 3rd place play-off is.

5: France: Runners up '87, '99. Semis '95 (3rd), '03 (4th), '07. Quarters '91.

6: Wales: Semis '87 (3rd). Quarters '99, '03.

7: Scotland: Semis '91 (4th). Quarters '87, '95, '99, '03, '07

(I put Wales ahead of Scotland on account of having achieved a 3rd place to Scotland's 4th, as best result: although they have reached the semi-finals equally often and Scotland have reached more quarters.)

8: Argentina: Semis '07 (yet to play). Quarters '99.

(If Argentina win, they jump to 5th, ahead of France who have never won. If they are runners-up, they jump to 6th ahead of Wales and Scotland who have never reached a final. If they come 3rd, they jump to 7th, behind Wales but ahead of Scotland who have never come 3rd. If they lose both the semi-final and play-off, they remain in 8th.)

9: Ireland: Quarters '87, '91, '95, '03. QF play-off, '99.

=10: (Western) Samoa: Quarters '91, '95. QF play-off, '99.

=10: Fiji: Quarters '87, '07. QF play-off, '99.

12: Canada: Quarters '91.

  • 166.
  • At 12:28 PM on 14 Oct 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

Sorry lads but the pick and drive is going to be alot harder should the english face the springboks in the final if SA win tonight. Dont forget that SA possiabley has the most effective and well drilled forwards at this rugby world cup, not too mention that the backline of the springboks has unmatched pace on the wings compared to england. To be honest im dieing to see the match up between Old Johnny and the south african prodogy François Steyn ( SA's Johnny ) i rate that steyn will be slotting in a couple of drop goals of his own....Anyway congrats to the english for getti