Who do people actually want to win?

[Garryowen]

There's been a lot of discussion this week about who we think will win each QF, but I thought it would be an interesting experiment to see who forumers actually want to win. C

learly most on here will wants the Wobs, and probably the French, to win, but I suspect views will be divided on the other two matches.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see the beautiful triumph over the dull, the adventurous over the conservative.

Ergo, Wobs, French, Wales and ABs for me.

What about you?

 

[light]

1. Wallabies
2. Wallabies
3. Daylight
4. Wales.

 

[Slim 293]

Wallabies obviously.

I feel Wales deserve it more than the Irish based on recent performances.

Argentina winning would provide one of the greatest RWC upsets of all time, but I think their time was 4 years ago.

And no one wants to see England succeed.

 

[Bowside]

I want a rematch with Ireland in the final. I dont think either team will get that far, but what a match that would be.

 

[Athilnaur]

1 Wallabies
2 Wales
3 ABs

Wales because it's great to see them regaining their rep as a force in rugby and their style of rugby is great.

ABs because they are the best team of the last ten years, I don't care what others say about Eng 03, and realistically they deserve the success.

Us because when we're on song we have the most exciting team in rugby and because I think some patronising Kiwi fans need reminding they aren't all that.

 

[matty_k]

My specific order goes like this.
1. Wallabies
2. Anyone who hasn't won it before
3. The Darkness - Have yet to win it twice and prefer them over England
4. England - Have yet to win it twice
5. S. Africa - Don't want them to be the first team to win it three times and to win it back to back.

So ideally what happens this weekend is this
1. Wales or Ireland - don't really care
2. France
3. Argies
4. Wallabies

 

[Garryowen]

Not a lot of love for Ireland it would appear. Don't feel too sympathetic myself to be honest. I was aghast when I saw the ball in play stats for the Wobs - Ireland match: 29 minutes! I find it hard to get excited by teams that play a spoiling game. Moreover, there's little duller in my view than seeing ROG in the pocket for 80 mins kicking for territory.

 

[FANATIC]

1. Wallabies
2. Wales - never won before
3. ABs - never won before. 1987 - I don't care if it is engraved on BILL as it DOES NOT COUNT because RSA were not there and you can not say you are the BEST when such a powerful rugby nation as RSA unable to compete for political reasons. I would say the same if AUS had its name next to 1987 also.

 

[matty_k]

Yes but do you say the about 1991? From what I recall RSA weren't there either and for political reasons too.

 

[Slim 293]

1. Wallabies
2. Wales - never won before
3. ABs - never won before. 1987 - I don't care if it is engraved on BILL as it DOES NOT COUNT because RSA were not there and you can not say you are the BEST when such a powerful rugby nation as RSA unable to compete for political reasons. I would say the same if AUS had its name next to 1987 also.

So Australia's win in '91 doesn't count either?

The fact is (and this is what history will show), is that New Zealand won the 1987 Rugby World Cup, and Australia won the 1991 Rugby World Cup.

So they definitely count.

It's engraved on the trophy.

 

[FANATIC]

So Australia's win in '91 doesn't count either?

The fact is (and this is what history will show), is that New Zealand won the 1987 Rugby World Cup, and Australia won the 1991 Rugby World Cup.

So they definitely count.

It's engraved on the trophy.

Did you notice that I have not made any mention of AUS winning for a third time?

While what you say in your post does count in the eyes of the ABs and Wallabies... in the eyes of the world there are question marks.

Our friendly rugby friends from South African naturally put up good arguments along these lines.

 

[Slim 293]

Did you notice that I have not made any mention of AUS winning for a third time?

While what you say in your post does count in the eyes of the ABs and Wallabies... in the eyes of the world there are question marks.

Our friendly rugby friends from South African naturally put up good arguments along these lines.

No there's not.

In 1987 a Rugby World Cup was held and New Zealand won it.

In 1991 a Rugby World Cup was held and Australia won it.

Just because one team didn't compete in those tournaments it doesn't mean these achievements did not occur.

 

[Slim 293]

Look, it's right there on the trophy:

There can be no dispute about it.

 

[Fredfreduels]

Wallabies
Argentina
Wales
England

 

[cyclopath]

And let's not forget how SA demolished the Wallabies in 1992 in SA...no, wait. Not so much.
Belittling the achievements of NZ and Aus in '87 and '91 by hypothesising what SA might have done is silly.

 

[Athilnaur]

You could also say the only reason the Boks won in 95 was Mandela.

That's so silly you could make a mov... Never mind.

 

[Slim 293]

You could also say the only reason the Boks won in 95 was Susie.

That's so silly you could make a mov... Never mind.

Oh shit...

 

[Athilnaur]

And puke.

Did we find out if there was a Siobhan at our hotel the day before we played Ireland?

 

[James Buchanan]

1. Wallabies - Self explanatory
2. Wales - have always had time for the taffs
3. Argentina - would be amazing for them and world rugby (and us not having to play the ABs if we win would be nice)
4. France - Because it means England is out of the cup.

 

[whatty]

What a insignificant thread this is....