Finnegan Posted 8 September 2007 Author Posted 8 September 2007 Disappointed, really. Because everyone is going to be full of how good the ABs were, but in reality that was one of the worst Italian performances you'd ever see. They didn't start til about the 70th minute.
Alexikokopops Posted 8 September 2007 Posted 8 September 2007 I'm going for Argentina.They're good at football you see. You can pick the ball up in Rugby, it'll be even easier for them. I'm magnificent.
MPH Posted 8 September 2007 Posted 8 September 2007 Disappointed, really. Because everyone is going to be full of how good the ABs were, but in reality that was one of the worst Italian performances you'd ever see. They didn't start til about the 70th minute. they new this was a loser from the start- they even considered dropping some of their better players...
Finnegan Posted 8 September 2007 Author Posted 8 September 2007 they new this was a loser from the start- they even considered dropping some of their better players... No game's a 'loser from the start' when you've got two competitive nations squaring off.
Milky Posted 8 September 2007 Posted 8 September 2007 I was watching the football, but 28-10 doesn't sound good A win's a win though right?
Lord Nibblington Posted 8 September 2007 Posted 8 September 2007 I was watching the football, but 28-10 doesn't sound good A win's a win though right? In much the same way that England drawing 0-0 at half-time with Andorra and then going on to win 3-0 is a win, I think.
davieG Posted 8 September 2007 Posted 8 September 2007 I was watching the football, but 28-10 doesn't sound good A win's a win though right? not quite as I believe bonus points make a big difference.
Finnegan Posted 9 September 2007 Author Posted 9 September 2007 England will still get out of their group. But, all the same, ahahahahahahahaha. ... God let us wake up and hammer Canada. I'll accept something on the lines of 42 - 12 if we play well. Canada are one of the better poorer sides in the tournament.
Finnegan Posted 9 September 2007 Author Posted 9 September 2007 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Milky Posted 9 September 2007 Posted 9 September 2007 England will still get out of their group. But, all the same, ahahahahahahahaha.... God let us wake up and hammer Canada. I'll accept something on the lines of 42 - 12 if we play well. Canada are one of the better poorer sides in the tournament. ahahahahaha! Half time, Wales 9 - 12 Canada. Canada have scored two tries! Surely this can't get any better Credit to Canada, because at 17 - 9 ahead they had the Welsh worried, and three tries aswell. Just ran out of steam in the end.
Finnegan Posted 9 September 2007 Author Posted 9 September 2007 I've a few things to say: 1. Phew. 2. Fair play, I'll repeat what I said about Canada being one of the better poorer sides in the competition. They did the right things, slowed the game down, made it dull (in a good way), slugged away and generally kept it tight as long as they could. 3. Stephen Jones makes a massive, MASSIVE difference. I'd say more so than the Canadians simply getting tired, though I won't doubt conditioning as a factor. If we're confident, tight and focused I can see us performing much better against Australia if the forwards turn up from the first minute. 4. Wtf Shane Williams. 5. Phew.
Milky Posted 9 September 2007 Posted 9 September 2007 Samoa are brilliant to watch. They're running the ball from everywhere, and are really getting stuck in. England beware.
Milky Posted 9 September 2007 Posted 9 September 2007 Like the Japanese... with weight. ...and ability.
Geo V Posted 9 September 2007 Posted 9 September 2007 I didnt see England yesterday but the scoreline was worring, especially after the USA got that late touchdown.
Milky Posted 9 September 2007 Posted 9 September 2007 Ireland just beat Namibia 32-17. That's a woeful performance.
Sparky Posted 10 September 2007 Posted 10 September 2007 refreshing to see the emerging nations putting up a fight , usa canada portugal and namibia did themselves proud
Matt Posted 10 September 2007 Posted 10 September 2007 This may have already been discussed earlier in thread but I've joined this thread late and can't be bothered to read the whole thread. Why are some Wales and Scotland game played at the Millennium Stadium and Murrayfield respectively then the other games are all in France? Surly mentally this gives the two teams an advantage playing in front of a home crowd?!
Finnegan Posted 10 September 2007 Author Posted 10 September 2007 It does give them an advantage, yes. It's for the same reason any nation shares a major tournament - lack of stadia and resources to host it. The world cup in Wales had games in Scotland and France.
Geo V Posted 10 September 2007 Posted 10 September 2007 No games today? What that all about? About 8 games in 2 days and then a blank day. Shite organization that.
Matt Posted 11 September 2007 Posted 11 September 2007 It does give them an advantage, yes. It's for the same reason any nation shares a major tournament - lack of stadia and resources to host it. The world cup in Wales had games in Scotland and France. So in that case why don't South Africa or another country (Not a home nation) play some games at the Millennium Stadium or Murrayfield for example? i.e Not Wales or Scotland playing at there home grounds? It'd be fairer that way.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 11 September 2007 Posted 11 September 2007 Watched about ten seconds of Argentina v Georgia tonight and literally the ONLY bit of commentary I heard went thus; Commentator #1: "Georgia will feel this is their best chance of getting a result at this World Cup, with games against France and Ireland to come, they can't fancy their chances against those two..." Commentator #2: "Well, they might also feel they have a chance against Namibia, who are also in their group..." Commentator #1: "..."
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.