France v Argentina in the 2007 Rugby World Cup Final: It SHOULD happen
Only four matches remain in the 2007 Rugby World Cup and following last weeks results there is currently no clear favorite for even the semi finals, let alone who will be crowned champion. The early exit of Australia and New Zealand has effectively debunked all pundits and experts, leaving predictions for the finals anyone’s best guess.
Rather than speculate wildly as to the results of this weekends games, let me make a case for the best possible result for Saturday’s semi finals: France over England and Argentina over South Africa. This sets up a repeat of the epic championship opener of France v Argentina. Even if beleaguered England managed a place in the final, the ‘down-and-out team does good’ story will not have the drama of the first and final matches of the tournament featuring the same 2 teams.
Argentina is the consummate underdog in the entire tournament and a place in the finals will give them the respect that has eluded the South Americans for so long. Already, the football-mad nation is taking notice of Argentina’s success at the RWC. Football matches have been rescheduled to prevent broadcast conflicts and rugby has supplanted the football news in the local newspapers. In addition, the consistently effective defense and tenacity of Los Pumas are one of the few game plans that has a chance against South Africa.
As for France, the pain of losing unexpectedly to Argentina is still raw despite their momentum in the pool stages and success over New Zealand in the quarter finals. French and international media outlets have frequently compared this quarter final victory to the French semi final victory over New Zealand at RWC 1999. However, little has been written on the subsequent collapse of France in 1999 against Australia in the final where they suffered a 35-12 defeat. Thus, Les Bleus need to show up for the England match ‘in the mood to win’ so they have the chance to prove to the world that their focus and determination can extend beyond any individual match. Only this will prove France worthy of hoisting the Webb Ellis trophy. England on the the other hand will struggle with their pedestrian style if France show up with their creativity and their flair.
(On Oct 12th, 2007 at 10:32 am)
I agree that it is near impossible to predict a winner in these two matches, but based on what I’ve read, I’ll take a stab.
I think England will defeat France solely because they are riding high right now and the entire team seems to be playing above their normal capabilities. France I think may be spent after a very difficult win over New Zealand where they suffered a few injuries. I was more apt to believe France could have beaten New Zealand, but never in my wildest dreams did I think England could’ve beaten Australlia. I’ll stick with the hot team right now and put my money on England (afterall they did beat them in the Six Nations).
I’m also going to have to disagree with you again because I think RSA will defeat Argentina. Argentina had a nice run and they’ve made tremendous strides and exceeded all expectations, but the fairy tale has to end sometime. Argentina barely got by Scotland, a match in which my opinion Scotlad gave away. RSA seems to start very slowly and allow teams to stay within striking distance, but then they always seem to pull away for the win. RSA had a bit of a nail biter against Fiji allowing them to tie the score within about 5 minutes, but then buckled down and did not allow them to score again. If Argentina has any chance to win it will be because RSA let their guard down and were not able to come back. But I don’t see that happening.
I originally picked RSA to win the Webb Ellis Cup and I’m sticking to that. I’d rather see France v. Argentina, but I think it will be England v. RSA in the final.
BTW Vic, I’m afraid to comment on your write ups now that I’m aware of your satirical powers. I had to read this one 10 times to make sure it was real.
(On Oct 12th, 2007 at 10:40 am)
Hey, I didn’t predict anything, I would just love to see FRA v ARG in the final.
And yes, my satire is now widely known. I’ll have to start blogging under a pseudonym (that means a ‘pretend name’ BTW
).
(On Oct 12th, 2007 at 10:56 am)
“Let me make a case for the best possible result….”
Word it anyway you want, that’s called a prediction (those I do recognize).
And thanks I know what a psuedonym is. I have a great one in mind for you….
(On Oct 13th, 2007 at 3:35 pm)
It’s anything but a prediction. Less selective quoting of the main article would demonstrate that.
“Rather than speculate wildly as to the results of this weekends games, let me make a case for the best possible result.”
The remainder of the article was essentially, “Why it would be cool to see an Argentina-France final”, not “Why I expect to see an Argentina-France final.”
(On Oct 14th, 2007 at 3:56 am)
Swiiiiiiiiiiing Low, Sweeeeeeeeet Chaaaaaaaariot!,
Coming for to carry me home…….etc etc.
How many in the pool predicted England in the final??
Oh that’s right…….me.
Argentina v France indeed. I know the Canucks are liberal with their medicinal Mary-Jane and all, but come on, this is real life. Apologies for drunken rambling but Englishman + England in final = inebriated.
(On Oct 16th, 2007 at 9:57 am)
Sweet god I hate that song.
Alan, are you a friend of Vic’s? Because if you are you should know Vic has a tricky way of wording things. I’ve known him long enough to know what he meant and that he actually was making a prediction.
(On Oct 16th, 2007 at 10:14 am)
Anyway, I DID make a prediction and I was right.
I love speculating wildly and making predicitions.
(On Oct 16th, 2007 at 11:18 am)
lol. Josh, this was one of those times when i wasn’t being witty or clever, sorry to disappoint.
(On Oct 16th, 2007 at 12:36 pm)
No Josh, never met the man. But since discovering this blog and reading most of the articles, I’ve been busting on him for various incorrect wordings and flawed historical data (and I haven’t even gotten to the RWC (Minus the USA) article). I only thought it appropriate that I also stick up for him when he wasn’t wrong.
(On Oct 16th, 2007 at 12:41 pm)
@Alan: note the article authors, Josh is an author also and has most of the spelling mistakes and unsupported ‘facts’ (heheh, sry Josh).
(On Oct 16th, 2007 at 2:17 pm)
er…hehe. Oh. I thought this was a one-man operation. I guess I should pay more attention myself.
(On Oct 17th, 2007 at 8:50 am)
@Vic: I just read the two articles I wrote and there were no spelling or gramatical errors. So before you start slinging mud at me oh wise and perfect one, read your own material because there are errors in many of your writings. Jerk. Ad=nd I did post my sources in the comments.
@Alan: I wouldn’t say the historical data is flawed, it’s more incomplete than anything
(On Oct 17th, 2007 at 10:45 am)
I didn’t have the heart to tell you that I copy-edit your work after you post
I guess I’ll have to do the same to my own!
(On Oct 17th, 2007 at 11:35 am)
Thank you professor Vic. This is a rugby blog right? Aren’t we all supposed to be a little illiterate? I wasn’t aware I was being graded on my grammar and spelling.