We won!

Written By: - Date published: 8:18 am, October 24th, 2011 - 91 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

Finally the cup comes back to good old NZ! You beauty! That said, well done the French. It was a much more exciting and tense game than most expected and I don’t think there was anyone watching who wasn’t on the edge of their seat right to the final whistle.

Congratulations to the All Blacks and to all those who have supported them to this historic victory.

91 comments on “We won! ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Carol 1
    24 October 2011 at 8:36 am

    And congratulations to the French for defying expectations, proving themselves worthy finalists and making an exciting game of it.

    Also, great try by Woodcock. It reminds that I once heard rugby described as a metaphor for capitalism: the forwards are the labourers toiling at the coalface, and the results of their labourer produces the results, while the flashy-players in the backs get all the glory.

  2. mikesh 2
    24 October 2011 at 8:39 am

    Is that John Key I see at the left in the photo?

    • Lanthanide 2.1
      24 October 2011 at 12:37 pm

      Yes, but he’s standing in front of the team next to the podium. Any other PM would be doing the same.

  3. Bored 3
    24 October 2011 at 8:44 am

    Thank God for that: a monkey off our back and a national obsession cured. Its all been a bit like the 1956 Boks who we had to beat or the sky would have fallen in.

    Well done Richy and the boys, you have put a big smile on our faces and a spring in our step. Now for a pleasant summers fishing.

    • millsy 3.1
      24 October 2011 at 9:52 am

      The parallels with 1956 were not lost on me either. Losing was not an opition and the AB’s were made to work bloody hard for it — it wasant just a case of turning up. Which is what it should be. Makes the win even more sweeter.

  4. RedLogix 4
    24 October 2011 at 8:46 am

    The French only come to the RWC to dick the All Blacks… and they very nearly did. And yet credit to the AB’s for holding out. For the last four years they’ve been the standout best team in the world, yet it is in the very nature of the game (the ball itself was designed that way) for luck to play it’s part making it an extraordinarily difficult task to keep on winning game after game.

    Last night the French were the better team on the field and could have easily won, but were unlucky. Just as they were lucky to get through the play-offs and win against the Welsh.

    Yes the narrow score-line puts makes a mockery of the the pundits predicting a 20 pt win. But ultimately Henry has suceeded at his second attempt (and no coach has won the Cup at his first attempt)… not with one brilliant game, but with good leadership, trust in his team and a solid long-term plan.

    • Herodotus 4.1
      24 October 2011 at 9:39 am

      RL – Sir Brian Lochore only coached for a single RWC campaign. What a list he has AB, AB captain, Coach of the AB’s in 87 and well respected dignified figure that can relate well to everyone. A mate who ran in to him this week was was amazed of the engaging conservation he had with Sir Brian.
      Great game and congrads to the AB’s. NZ at its best over the tournament.
      relieved that it is all over 😎

      • RedLogix 4.1.1
        24 October 2011 at 10:02 am

        I wondered who was going to be the pedantic twat on that one. Of course the 1987 Cup could have only been won by a first time coach… duh.

        (Taking nothing away from Brian Lochore of course…)

        • Herodotus 4.1.1.1
          24 October 2011 at 10:13 am

          There was also The S.A coach in 95 Kitch Christie, who only got the job a year earlier !!!!

        • Herodotus 4.1.1.2
          24 October 2011 at 10:20 am

          Forgot also Jake White who won the coaching job in 2004 and won it in his 1st attempt in 2007. there was also rod Macqueen who was Aussi Nat coach from 97-01 If my sources are correct

    • Chris 4.2
      24 October 2011 at 11:13 am

      Haha yeah pretty sure only Graham Henry and Clive Woodward have had 2 shots at the cup, everyone else only had 1.

      • Herodotus 4.2.1
        24 October 2011 at 4:58 pm

        Yeah Chris I had the same thoughts, but was not confident to spout off. Espercially as RL like many others on theis site When pointed to their errors instead of admitting an oversight instead resorts to name calling “… to be the pedantic twat on that one…”. I suppose in this persons book being correct in an all covering statement only 2/7’s is close enough 😉

        • RedLogix 4.2.1.1
          24 October 2011 at 5:07 pm

          OK so I was going by a source I believed was reliable. I was wrong on this one.

          • Herodotus 4.2.1.1.1
            24 October 2011 at 5:44 pm

            Thats Ok, we all gets things wrong from time to time. 😎
            Love to see something we all should just site back and enjoy, get so politicised.
            Bask in the glory, because for 4+ weeks all we will have is polorised election jousting. He said she said school yard antics. Pity that NZ future is dependant upon such destructive forces in the red and blue corners.

  5. RedLogix 5
    24 October 2011 at 8:50 am

    And on a completely different note.. right now Key is on Radio NZ lapping up as much credit for all this win as he can.

    He never turns up for the hard political interviews on RNZ… but here he is taking as much credit as he can for other people’s hard work.

    Sickening.

  6. Bill 6
    24 October 2011 at 8:53 am

    Oh well, I was thinking I was going to be a very happy chappie for a wee while there 😉

    Still, on the bright side, I guess Woman’s Refuge was much less busy last night than might have been.

    But on the other hand. What does this win do in terms of delivering votes to the Parliamentary incumbents riding the back of a ‘feel good’ factor?

    • Bored 6.1
      24 October 2011 at 9:03 am

      Maybe Bill it means we will be thinking “who needs Jonkey for reassurance when Richie has put a smile on our faces”? I might even fell happy enough to vote for Goff (heaven forbid).

    • Colonial Viper 6.2
      24 October 2011 at 5:18 pm

      Feel good factor from this has a half life of 72 hours, starting from the final whistle last night.

      Man on the street has been saying that the ABs were lucky, more than anything else.

    • Puddleglum 6.3
      24 October 2011 at 9:27 pm

      I posted this yesterday, but it is a part answer to your question.

      There are effects of sporting events, partly from a general ‘well-being’ influence, as the abstract that I mention in that link makes clear. There are many of these sorts of influences which, at a population level, have a reliable, if small, effect.

      As I say in that comment, those effects are probably of more significance in a proportional system like MMP than in FPP.

      Incumbents are favoured by home team victories. While the study analyses college basketball results within ten days prior to gubernatorial elections it would be hard to extrapolate to a six week event such as the RWC.

      But, on the basis of these kinds of studies, the success of the hosting and the success of the ABs can only work in favour of the incumbent, so far as I can see.

      The irony is that the ‘feel good’ effect is, in many ways, the experience of a temporary (and relatively contrived) sense of unity and ‘oneness’ as a nation – all New Zealanders together, sharing a common hope, etc., etc..

      I say ‘irony’ because increasingly our modern lives split us apart into a chaos of individual agendas, trajectories, ‘preferences’ and ambitions – such is the way of the world we have today. It is that same world that then gets to sell back to us some malnourished and momentary sense of unity.

      Sigh. 

  7. mickysavage 7
    24 October 2011 at 8:54 am

    Congrats to the ABs.  I hope this game is a metaphor for the 2011 election campaign where the underdog turns up and battles their guts out and falls just short.

    And then MMP kicks in and the Greens have a good day … 

  8. Afewknowthetruth 8
    24 October 2011 at 8:56 am

    ‘US forces give the nod; it’s a setback for your country.’ (Midnight Oil)

    Hosting and winning RWC; it’s a setback for our country.

  9. Raymond A Francis 9
    24 October 2011 at 9:02 am

    The remains of another Labour party epic fail
    When Labour signed NZ up for the RWC they thought/ imagined that they would still be in power
    With the winning of the cup they would be returned again and lead NZ forever, well a decade and a half
    Hence their reaction and disbelief on losing three years ago, poor buggers still have not got their heads around that

    • RedLogix 9.1
      24 October 2011 at 9:19 am

      So you should be very pleased that your man Key gets to take all the credit (once again) for a good Labour Party decision. No?

    • ak 9.2
      24 October 2011 at 9:23 am

      Well done Raymond. It was a tight finish, but you came through in the end and congratulations on being the inaugural winner of the Keyfellation Cup in 2011 for your outstanding effort in managing to evade all rationality and denigrate Labour for setting up a popular national celebration. Pure genius, an inspiration to all NACT members and their swallowers.

    • millsy 9.3
      24 October 2011 at 9:53 am

      Some right winger always has to put a downer on things by attacking the Labour Party…

  10. Tombstone 10
    24 October 2011 at 9:32 am

    First thing I said to my wife after the game ‘Key will be out tomorrow creaming this for all it’s worth and trying to take as much credit for both the tournament and the win as he can’ – talk about predictable. And I agree with others, how gutless is it that he can talk up something like an All Black win but he can’t front up to the tough questions regarding the appalling state of our country, 2 credit downgrades, terrible unemployment figures, poverty at a high, gap growing bigger not smaller with Aussie, rich getting richer while poor getting poorer and on and on it goes …. no, that would mean risking exposing himself for the failure that he is. Can’t have that now can we? Gutless swine.

  11. tsmithfield 11
    24 October 2011 at 10:00 am

    Commentors here seem to want to pin the outcomes of the recent disasters on Key. To be consistent, then, why not attribute the outcome of the world cup competition to him as well?

    • RedLogix 11.1
      24 October 2011 at 10:35 am

      Commentors here seem to want to pin the outcomes of the recent disasters on Key.

      No we have consistently wanted to pin the responsibility for mismanaging the government response to these disasters on Key. He is after all PM and I was under the impression he might have some responsibility for it’s performance.

      On the other hand Smitty, exactly what part did Key have in the outcome of the game last night? And here was me thinking it was Henry who was the coach, and McCaw who was the captain.

    • thejackal 11.2
      24 October 2011 at 10:51 am

      The only problem with your argument there tsmithfield is that National deregulated the mining inspectorate, which directly made Pike River mine more dangerous. National also deregulated the shipping industry giving rise to less oversight and cheap labor. Do you actually think a New Zealand crew would have run the Rena onto Astrolabe reef? I don’t think so.

      The other issue is that the response has not been adequate. In the case of the Rena disaster, it took five days before Maritime New Zealand even started to develop a plan… National didn’t even meet to discuss the disaster until then either. Despite assurances by Hekia Parata, there is no proper oil spill response capabilities in New Zealand. She is a bold faced liar.

      Yesterday another ten tonnes of oil leaked and they can only put a boom around it… they still can’t get it out of the water. We are still waiting for the proper pumping equipment to arrive, nineteen days after the Rena first grounded. Don’t even get me started on Nationals failures re Christchurch.

      So how exactly can we attribute the All Black’s win to John Key’s smile and wave I wonder… perhaps you’re implying that John Key bribed the ref to make a few stupid calls? Not to rain on anybodies parade, but that would be the only thing I can think of whereby John Key could claim any credit for the AB’s win.

      Good on the AB’s… and the French for bringing it.

    • mik e 11.3
      24 October 2011 at 11:59 am

      TSM National should then be thanking Mallard and Clark for brining the cup home

    • tc 11.4
      24 October 2011 at 2:22 pm

      No troll day off then ?

  12. Martin 12
    24 October 2011 at 10:20 am

    Have seen no thanks to Helen in the media for working so hard to secure the cup. (She tweeted the game from the stands last night.) Just lots of inane comments from Key.

  13. Martin 13
    24 October 2011 at 10:22 am

    Goff could take comfort from the case of Steven Donald. Villified for a long time but comes in at the last minute and saves New Zealand.

  14. Anne 14
    24 October 2011 at 10:30 am

    Could one of you ‘pc wiz-kids’ compile a video of all the occasions John Key uses the AB win for self-grandiosement between now and the election? It could go on Face Book a week or two out from the election. If it’s well done the media might pick up on it.

    • seeker 14.2
      24 October 2011 at 10:51 pm

      Anne- posted this comment last night after a rather late overseas phone call. Not sure if Key knows about his bad rep. going global. Anthony has posted a link to the episode above @11.02am 5.02 Here’s what I commented to Eddie:

      Just got off the phone. Was talking to my English friend who had been over here for four weeks following the rugby, now returned to England and was watching the final over there.
      She was aghast at Key’s lack of etiquette as you have just described Eddie. I hadn’t seen it – was busy wailing in anguish in the kitchen where I had fled at the sound of 
. “and the honourable John Key
”.’cos I can hardly bear the sight of him anymore.
      My friend said that after the trophy had been presented to Ritchie Mac, Key leaned across the IRB chap to shake his hand but the IRB boss, quite correctly, put him in his place by moving in front of Key’s hand and shaking Richie’s hand himself, as it should be. She said Key was just trying to promote himself and added “what a dreadful little man!.”
      This from an English viewer and rugby fan and even she can sum Key up from 12,000kms. What’s wrong with the ’70% Kwis’ that think he’s the bees knees? I think Key has made a bit of an ass of himself ( and us) in front of the world, and at a world cup presentation! No class. Good job the All Blacks did us proud.

      Self- grandiosement backfiring methinks.

      This is a better link

      (Sorry comment’s in full- I just ‘copied and pasted’as I’m tired)

  15. Cloaca 15
    24 October 2011 at 11:05 am

    Why wasnt’ Helen interviewed. Without her we would not have wone the cup ?

    • Anne 15.1
      24 October 2011 at 1:29 pm

      Because (Key)[Deleted…RL] issued an instruction to compliant media that she was to be ignored… cos he wasn’t gunna have her interfere with his RWC election game plan.

      [I have to agree with Carol below… dodgy territory. RL]

      • Carol 15.1.1
        24 October 2011 at 1:40 pm

        Referring to Key as Shylock is stepping into dangerous territory re negative stereotypes of Jewish people:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shylock#Antisemitic_reading

        Is a contested issue, I know, but such references make me uneasy.

      • Anne 15.1.2
        24 October 2011 at 4:53 pm

        You’re welcome to delete the reference RL, but it surprises me since it has been in usage on this site by others for some time without negative comment.

        The fictional Shylock was, first and foremost, a 17th century version of a modern day finance trader. It was in that capacity I used the term. I doubt whether any of the commenters who have also used the term were doing so in an anti-semitic sense.

        I’m reminded to a degree of the nonsense a couple of decades ago about the much loved Enid Blyton characters, Noddy and Big Ears.

        [Fair enough… but words have a way of changing their meaning over time. I accept that you were using Shakespeare’s great character in the sense you say, but equally the entire play hinges on the fact that the moneylender in that age was a Jew and that held a huge resonance for the audiences of that time as well…even as it does now. And yes others have used the word and it’s not been moderated; but then neither is moderation a strict or perfect process. …RL]

        • McFlock 15.1.2.1
          24 October 2011 at 6:41 pm

          Did a quick search of the site – barring one or two individuals, most of the 18 or so uses are pretty clear literary references. The trouble is that the word can go either way unless clearly signposted.

        • Anne 15.1.2.2
          24 October 2011 at 7:23 pm

          Thanks for the explanation RL. My explanation: as someone who in the past had a close association (in England) with a number of Jewish people, any suggestion of Anti-Semitism did come across as a bit offensive.

          • LPH 15.1.2.2.1
            24 October 2011 at 8:02 pm

            It’s a pretty shocking thing to say – especially as John Key is actually Jewish and since his mother was forced to flee her homeland ahead of the Nazis.

            I sincerely doubt that if someone on the other side of the aisle used an ethnic slur, especially against a member of the group the target of the slur, that the reference – intentional or not – would go unexcoriated on this site.

            • LPH 15.1.2.2.1.1
              24 October 2011 at 8:12 pm

              AND if the person making said slur then tried to defend themselves with the old, “some of my best friends are…” – then so much more disdainful would the ostracism be.

              • LPH …
                24 October 2011 at 8:27 pm

                AND that’s to say nothing of the old Jewish bankers-control-the-media angle.

                The revolution devours its own children, I suppose.

                [The reference was moderated even though it’s been established it was not being used in an anti-Semitic sense. However as a first time commenter don’t push your luck. I’ve no scruples around being anti-arsehole…RL]

                 

                • LPH …
                  24 October 2011 at 9:00 pm

                  Hey! No need to resort to calling me an arse-hole! I am just concurring with the moderation here! Whether it was intended or not, to the Shakespeare familiar public the connotation of “Shylock” isn’t generally held to be the prosaic “finance trader” – it’s “Usurious Jew”.

                  I thought maybe the poster wasn’t familiar with the racial persecution suffered by the PM’s family and thought some context might illuminate the matter – and explain why it might be a good idea to avoid some of the more pernicious Jewish stereotypes.

                  I was also just suggesting that baldly advancing the conspiracy theory that  the media not to take the cameras off the rugby and place them onto Helen Clark was at the behest of “Shylock” isn’t a great look.

                  [You have made your point but in doing so I’m struck by your peculiar, and largely unecessary response to something that has already been cleared up. Regardless of your ‘bona-fides’ LPH… if you behave obnoxiously you will attract the attention of the moderators….RL]

                   

              • McFlock …
                24 October 2011 at 8:33 pm

                Oh ffs – oh noes, if a RWNJ had said that it would have been moderated immediately! Bullshit.
                 
                If a RWNJ had said it they would probably have had a history of less doubtful ways of expressing themselves, so it wouldn’t have slipped under the moderation radar.
                 
                The fact is that the character in the play can be played either sympathetically or perjoratively (if you prick us, do we not bleed? etc). The name in reference to the play can refer to either the culture or the business of the character. It also has a number of definitions in the patois of the street.
                It is NOT as explicit or as likely to be perjorative as some of the RWNJs around here get – e.g. “limp-wristed Goff” as someone wrote recently.

                • LPH …
                  24 October 2011 at 8:47 pm

                  Just to be clear:

                  The degree to which someone can be held culpable for an ethnic slur is proportionate to their left-wing bona fides. If you are left then ipso facto you cannot be racist and must be given the benefit of the doubt? If you are not-left, however, dog-whistling is presumed.

                  Cool.

                  What about the idea that those who are the most paranoid about sanitising the language and the most shrill in demanding the expunging of offensive terms be the most careful about the language they deploy?

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    24 October 2011 at 8:51 pm

                    Total conceptual fail.

                  • felix …
                    24 October 2011 at 8:54 pm

                    McFlock didn’t say or imply any of what you accuse of in your second para and convict of in your third.

                    Nasty habit, putting words in peoples mouths. Right up there with ascribing malicious intent where none is self-evident.

                    I smell a particularly nasty piece of work.

                  • McFlock …
                    24 October 2011 at 8:56 pm

                    Wow – how to fuck up reading comprehension 101.
                    I’m not a mod. From my observations, the degree to which a person is interpreted as having made an objectionable comment is determined by how clear the e.g. ethnic slur is as a slur, the context of the thread, and whether the commenter has a history of confrontational or objectionable language.
                     
                    From what I’ve read here, the people far more likely to be on the edge of category 3 are RWNJs. Not because of any particular bias on the part of the moderators, simply because RWNJs are tremendously likely to be jerks.
                     

                    • LPH …
                      24 October 2011 at 9:08 pm

                      Speak for yourself mate. I’m not criticising the moderators, I’m criticising your third paragraph.

                      Case-in-point. In your example, when someone sees a lefty calling a Jewish politician “Shylock” they should jettison fifth-form English and read “finance trader”.

                      If, however, you see a righty call Phil Goff limp-wristed, then you must suppress the interpretation of “ineffectual” in favour of presuming homophobia.

                      And you justify that prejudice on the basis set out in my second paragraph.

                      [OK this ends here. The whole point of moderating the comment in the first place was to avoid this kind of stupid flame-war. End it now or get banned…RL]

            • felix 15.1.2.2.1.2
              24 October 2011 at 8:48 pm

              “I sincerely doubt that if someone on the other side of the aisle used an ethnic slur…”

              Yeah, “if”.

              Whatever LPH.

          • Carol 15.1.2.2.2
            25 October 2011 at 8:48 am

            Late to this as I was busy yesterday afternoon & evening. Thanks for clearing that up RL. Anne, I did think you were using the term without being aware of the negative connotations and history, which is why I provided the link.

            • Anne 15.1.2.2.2.1
              25 October 2011 at 10:37 am

              Thanks Carol. Guessed that was the case.

              RL’s comment … but words have a way of changing their meaning over time is so true and this is a case in point.

              I did my Secondary School Shakespeare studies in the early Sixties before the full impact of the individual Holocaust stories was generally felt. Such was the horror of the victims’ experiences, it took many of them 30 to 40 years before they could talk about it. Since the 70s decade there has been a profound change in perceptions and sensitivities based on their stories, and I can appreciate now that students these days would be taught to view characters such as Shylock in a different light than was previously the case.

        • Vicky32 15.1.2.3
          24 October 2011 at 7:32 pm

          I commented on this issue as well, where did my comment go? Was it moderated off? If so, why was I not informed?

          [Hi – nothing from you in spam or trash folders. Your browser may have dropped the ball somewhere? Sorry! r0b]

    • higherstandard 15.2
      24 October 2011 at 1:43 pm

      She is irrelevant to the All Blacks winning last night – the less vile politicians on display the better.

    • seeker 15.3
      24 October 2011 at 10:54 pm

      Exactly Cloaca – cheers Helen !!

  16. Kty 16
    24 October 2011 at 11:58 am

    There is a parade on for the ABs in auckland this afternoon around 2.30, local radio tells us that the P.M. will be in attendance, can’t wait to see what sort of Richard Cranium he makes of him self,if he worms his way into the actual parade.

    • first time caller 16.1
      24 October 2011 at 3:54 pm

      The only “Richard Cranium” politician I’ve seen on screen at this parade is Len Brown…Interesting he turned up when you consider organization had to be taken off him for his incompetent handling of the opening night transport.

  17. Tiger Mountain 17
    24 October 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Good game really, nice to see some worried faces among the ABs, they deserved to win on form but it was good for them to be stretched and not achieve a walk over.

    Those that have left their brains at the door for the duration of the RWC will hopefully become reacquainted soon.

  18. Vicky32 18
    24 October 2011 at 2:04 pm

    We won, says the title of this post…
    Please tell me that means we can stop hearing about rugby ad nauseam now? Or will there be, as my sister predicts, 8 weeks of triumphalism and male glorification? 🙁

  19. Hilary 19
    24 October 2011 at 4:31 pm

    Just had a good look at the unbelievably hideous rugby Weta statue down at Ilott Green in Wellington. It is a Stalinist realist homo erotic eugenist tribute to rugby players, with a rugby ball at its pinnacle. Only good thing about it is it providing a little shelter from the wind for some of the Occupy Wellington group using that space. Some of them mentioned that after the parade on Wednesday apparently the players want to be photographed underneath it.

  20. pollywog 20
    24 October 2011 at 7:54 pm

    Here’s hoping Ian Smith never gets to comment on a rugby game again after confusing Thierry Dusautoir for Thierry Henry. Not once but twice !!!

    Meanwhile, social media was buzzing in the wake of the game following an on-air blunder by Sky TV commentator Ian Smith.

    Smith twice called French captain Thierry Dusautoir by the name of the French national football team Thierry Henry in a post-match interview.

    Dusautoir was clearly not amused by the error…

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/sport/5840252/Jane-leads-Twitter-return-Smith-lampooned

    Jeez…what a fuckwit.

  21. Terry 21
    24 October 2011 at 8:04 pm

    Doubt anyone will see this it is so far down your list! I am sorry to see the Standard making so much of the need to “WIN” (at all costs?). This is a major problem with New Zealanders, winning is everything. Let’s rejoice but remember to keep everything in proportion. In how many countries is rugby the number one winter sport? I am uncertain, but I think N.Z., South Africa, Wales (possibly Ireland – don’t know).
    I suggest people place highest value on “the way in which a team plays the game”. The manner in which the French played did credit to rugby. I will not comment on the AB style of “must win”.
    Key hardly needed the very bid help he got from this tournament This guy sure knows how to “play his own game”.

  22. Hilary 22
    24 October 2011 at 9:02 pm

    In 1987 Prime Minister David Lange took no interest in the RWC,, and it was an event completely separate from politics of the day. Rugby was still not very popular as a result of the Springbok and later Cavaliers tours.

  23. Reality Bytes 23
    24 October 2011 at 9:38 pm

    Well done the All Blacks, these guys had a real passion and discipline for what they do, and they saw it through, and as a result are justly acknowledged for their extraordinary efforts, respect to that.

    Interesting to hear that Goff was into his rugby when he was younger, sounds like quite an old school kiwi bloke stereotype, perhaps he should play on that if he wants to give the Nat’s a good run this year. I’m not really one for sport but was interested in the outcome of the cup for the gravitas and local significance it has.

  24. mikesh 24
    24 October 2011 at 10:50 pm

    It’s nice that the AB’s won, but each side scored one try and one kick each. It seems odd thoujgh that the AB’s kick should score more than the Frenchies one. It would seem that that the win was not due to the AB’s being better players (though they may well have been ), or that they played a better game (though they may well have done.). Their win seems to be due rather to an anomaly in the method of scoring, and the game should perhaps have been be considered a draw.

    I’m sorry to sound like a party pooper, but I can’t help having an analytical mind.

    • Colonial Viper 24.1
      24 October 2011 at 11:03 pm

      Penalty kick is worth more right?

      • mikesh 24.1.1
        25 October 2011 at 8:49 am

        That’s what the rules say. I guess. However, not exactly a convincing win. I’d have said it was a draw.

        • Carol 24.1.1.1
          25 October 2011 at 8:58 am

          A conversion and a penalty don’t reflect the same sort of performance. A conversion is a bonus attempt at kicking a goal following a try (a positive effort by the try scoring team). The penalty kick is the result of the opposing team infringing some rule.

          The ABs missed more penalty kicks, indicating they had a bit of an edge in general performance. But maybe winning by 1 point is not really a conclusive win, as, with a bit of luck, France could have scored in the last few minutes. Some games, e.g. tennis, require winning by at least 2 scores.

  25. seeker 25
    24 October 2011 at 11:10 pm

    Finally the cup comes back to good old NZ! You beauty! That said, well done the French

    Well said poster. It was remarked to me from across the globe that when interviewed Richie only spoke about the All Blacks and didn’t mention the French as per finals etiquette it is correct to do. I don’t know about this as I missed his interview -only heard the French captain, and he looked. and sounded exhausted .Hence my reply was that Richie was probably in the same boat but with overiding excitement and jubilation thrown in. Anyway I am glad this post articulates sporting etiquette in such a winning way! Thank you..

  26. Craig 26
    26 October 2011 at 5:21 pm

    Okay, now let’s make sure Spinning Johnny can’t incorporate footage of the All Blacks receipt of the Webb Ellis Cup into National Party election propaganda. It occurs to me that this is a matter of (i) requesting that the NZRFU protect the intellectual property status and nonpartisan status of the All Blacks in this context, and; (ii) asking the Electoral Commission for an advertising content decision on any such hypothetical contingency. This is the All Blacks’ victory, not that of National’s Dear Leader…