Could be the answer, sort of, although in the case of Brazil the capital is a political capital hundreds of miles away from real population centres. Brasilia would never be chosen for any sporting final.
So now we know who is REALLY to blame!
They were playing a far better team than themselves so they were under more pressure and made bad choices.
Wouldn't quite go that far, but Boks superior scrummaging was a major cause. It only takes a small level of vulnerability in that area to make a huge difference in position and points. For some, that's a return to the 'old' skills of Rugby, while others want a mobile pack playing the '15-man' game, with forwards as part of the 'back' line, outnumbering the oppo on attack - what I consider/call 'League' style. There's advantages in both forms, but, today, the Boks showed that Forward dominance still provides the means to win games.
Based on yesterday then no. Based on the week before when they beat New Zealand it would be a different story. England were poor yesterday, no one is saying otherwise, but that doesn't make them bad players or a bad team. You don't thump Australia and New Zealand if you are a bad team.If I were to pick a combined team out of the two teams that played in that final I don't think an English player would have made it.
That one is for you Mr Dawson.
, albeit pretty sure this story is a long way from done
