0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
So I was flicking through The Guardian in the staff room this morning and stumbled across this interesting article by Shaun Edwards....
Things looking up in northern hemisphere but Australia are the future
November should be a better month for the northern hemisphere countries but Australia are showing World Cup-winning potential
Listen carefully and you might be able to hear the World Cup clock ticking. As of Wednesday, kick-off for New Zealand 2011 was precisely two years away and those 24 months are going to rush by.
It may seem a while since South Africa left Paris with the Webb Ellis Cup, but from here on most coaches will be working against the clock and now is as good a time as any to look at the work in progress. And I don't mean on the stadiums.
[...]
Teams with quite a few thirty-somethings tend to win World Cups, which would make the All Blacks an even better bet. Yet with the spirit of adventure needed for such a long-term gamble, it could be worth putting a little loose change on Australia. They are young and may be a better bet for England in 2015. However, you sense Robbie Deans is producing something quite exciting and in 24 months his team will have a lot more experience.
-- The Guardian, 11/09
Adore this life
There is no guarantee
Could end by tomorrow
One good win and even the Nortrherner's are getting excited about the Wallabies. Never thought I'd see the day. Though I do agree. Hopefully Brisbane was the watershed moment for this team. If so the next 2 years should be a hell of a ride.
Australia IS the future. I agree but, seriously, grammar...
Depends on how you look at it. If you are talking about Australia as in the country it is 'is' but if you are talking about Australia as in the Wallabies you should use 'are' since the subject is then a 'they'.
Anyways I would've thought conditions in NZ 2011 don't really suit South Africa. Funnily enough the Irish always seem to do better against NZ when playing in NZ than they do at home and have had some very close games in the last few years. I reckon they'd be a good chance so long as the key players are still about or suitably replaced. It'd be good to see them in a final too. Having quite similar weather and being close to home I think Australia will feel fairly at home too. Assuming NZ choke again it'll make for an interesting tournament.
Last edited by James; 11-09-09 at 19:21.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
It should still be "is" in that case. Although the way the language is evolving...
It depends whether you use the word as a collective noun or a noun of multitude. The former deals with the group as one entity ("the team is on top of the competition table"); and the latter with the group as a number of individuals ("the team took their seats at the restaurant" -- obviously the team can't take "its" seat at the restaurant). It is increasingly popular in media style to refer to teams as "their" because more often the actions of the individual people contribute to team achievements, and it is confusing to refer to the team as both singular and plural in the one article.
I hope that helps.
Last edited by rick boyd; 11-09-09 at 21:30. Reason: typo -- tsk tsk
There are a lot of teams at their peak now..."In the 30's" Australia are an exciting unit, in all departments, up front the scrum destroyed the Bok's in Brissy... A back line that would not look out of place in any dream team..And an average age of 24.. What is not to like..Also played the only rugby worth talking about in the Tri Nations this year,,Time to start getting excited,,I think so.. As an Irish rugby fan I have seen a team prove it worth this year with grand slam and six nations and I am as excited with the developing Wallabies..World cup...My money is down already!! And so it begins!!
I wonder how many players from the Blacks and the Boks will retire/leave by the time 2011 comes around. Hard to imagine someone like Brad Thorn still being there but hats off to him if he is. JdV is going from the Boks and he has been the most talented (I don't consider speed a talent per se) back the Boks have had by a country mile. Wondering if Smit, Matfield, Botha and a few others will stay on.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
Brad Thorn, Ali Williams... 100% New Zealand pensioned off...
Even Francois Steyn's p*ssing off to Europe.
Last edited by pieter blackie; 13-09-09 at 14:10.
A kick in this game is like a rather nasty alcoholic shooter, only as good as it's chaser...
Courtesy of quality South African commentry
its only 1 game, i wouldnt get to excited
I reckon the ageing ABs and Boks will stay around for 2011, but both sides could start looking like Dad's Army.
Mind you, as we've seen from recent World Cups the Dad's Army approach has had it's fair share of success - who'd have given England a chance of making even the semi-finals in 2007 after the first two matches (leaden-footed win over USA and smashed by SA).
Yeah but a handful of the guys who won the 1999 world cup for Australia were also in the 1991 team. I think talent is just talent and if they haven't lost it as they get older it shows how talented they are. I would've thought some of the Springboks after winning pretty much all there is to win going around at the moment might decide to give something new a try. I mean Matfield's got what a Super 14 winners medal, 2 Tri-Nations wins, a World Cup winners medal, individual trophies for beating the various sides and god knows what else at provincial level. Pretty much leaves the Heineken cup as the only major trophy he hasn't had his hands on.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.