shin2 wrote:It's too bad that this tournament received scant coverage here in the U.S.
I actually felt it got more coverage than expected, seeing as how Universal Sports bought the rights. Actually it was also the same teams in the semis as in the 87 World Cup.
It wasn't a good final match to be honest. Both teams can play better than they did. Still the All Blacks were the best team in the tournament.
Seems like Piri Weepu saved his best kicks for Argentina. Not to mention the ref was very permissible with the All Blacks in that match, especially the first half. :shakehead:
Jav_sol wrote:
I actually felt it got more coverage than expected, seeing as how Universal Sports bought the rights. Actually it was also the same teams in the semis as in the 87 World Cup.
It wasn't a good final match to be honest. Both teams can play better than they did. Still the All Blacks were the best team in the tournament.
Seems like Piri Weepu saved his best kicks for Argentina. Not to mention the ref was very permissible with the All Blacks in that match, especially the first half. :shakehead:
NBC, the parent company of Universal Sports showed, I believe, three games over the six-week tournament. Universal televised a few more, but overall the coverage was sparse, considering it was a World Cup event. Just goes to show that rugby isn't as popular as soccer. :bleh:
Agree that the final wasn't very good; both teams trying not to lose rather than to win. The semi-final between New Zealand and Australia was a good match (if you're an All Blacks fan); it was extremely physical. Quade Cooper must be the most hated man in New Zealand.
Weepu's play in the final was a disappointment. He was not a happy camper when Donald was chosen to kick what turned out to be the winning field goal, nor was he thrilled when he was taken out of the game a few minutes later. Great to see a hog like Woodcock score a try though; like watching a lineman score a TD.
Still not clear how players can represent countries when they're not citizens of those countries. For example, I looked up the roster for Japan's team--ten of the thirty players were Pacific islanders or white guys.
shin2 wrote:Just goes to show that rugby isn't as popular as soccer. :bleh:
Well soccer isn't exactly popular here in the US either. When John Henry bought Liverpool F.C, they talked about it on sports radio for about 5 minutes and people were already calling in to complain about too much soccer talk. :beaten:
shin2 wrote:Still not clear how players can represent countries when they're not citizens of those countries. For example, I looked up the roster for Japan's team--ten of the thirty players were Pacific islanders or white guys.
I think it's because they're trying to make the sport more popular and more competitive. So there's lots of leeway. Italy has some Argentine players on their squad. Eventually I'm sure the IRB will set stricter rules for playing on a national team.
In Japan, it will probably like their soccer league, once Japanese players start playing in other countries with more competitive leagues. There will be a decrease in the about of foreign players on the national team.
Jav_sol wrote:Well soccer isn't exactly popular here in the US either. When John Henry bought Liverpool F.C, they talked about it on sports radio for about 5 minutes and people were already calling in to complain about too much soccer talk.
The day soccer becomes popular in this country is the day the world ends.
OT: don't know why this hasn't received more attention, but Chargers guard Kris Dielman, who was concussed in Sunday's game against the Jets, suffered a grand mal seizure on the flight home to San Diego. He's back with the team but is expected to miss a couple of games.
What an ugly game for the Pats against the Steelers. :shakehead: That the "defense" plays like crap isn't something new, but when the offense struggles so much, it's worrisome. :sweat: They only good thing about that game, was the return of Faulk.
Looks like Tebow's five minutes of luck ran out, in Denver's loss to Detroit. :beaten:
In an important divisional game the Cowboys fail to show up.
Arizona looked good for the first half, but did nothing in the second half.
Jav_sol wrote:What an ugly game for the Pats against the Steelers. :shakehead: That the "defense" plays like crap isn't something new, but when the offense struggles so much, it's worrisome.
As mentioned in the Sunday Night Football pre-game, the Steelers changed their defense from their usual zone coverage to a tight man-to-man and that neutralized Welker and Gronkowski...
Another bad week for the Pats' offense leads to another loss. :shakehead: They should just cut Ochocinco, they're paying millions for a practice squad player, he is non-factor during the games.
Jav_sol wrote:Another bad week for the Pats' offense leads to another loss. :shakehead: They should just cut Ochocinco, they're paying millions for a practice squad player, he is non-factor during the games.
Ironically, some big catches were made by number 85 on the Giants, the same number David Tyree wore when he made that helmet catch to help beat the Pats in Super Bowl XLII. :)
Colts lose again, 31-7, to the Falcons, and now lead in the Andrew Luck sweepstakes.
Packers beat the Chargers in a shootout, 45-38, thanks to three picks thrown by Phillip Rivers. :victory: :applaud:
Replying needs an account. Registration opens soon.