Rugby World Cup 2011 Thread

Nah, it’s all good, we’ve plenty of time for such discussions before the games start.

On the league lineouts issue, I doubt whether such a proposal (however interesting) would gain any traction with the powers that be.

The England Wales game should be an interesting gauge of where both teams are at one month out, although from Cumbrians post it looks like England at least are treating it as a trial match. I’m looking forward to tomorrow night’s All Blacks - Wallabies match far more than I would any ordinary Bledisloe/Tri Nations fixture. I believe it’s a preview of the final and both teams look like they’re fielding the top sides. Unfortunately the weather forecast isn’t the best so we might not see the best of both sides.

My predictions:

Group A:
1st: New Zealand, simply the greatest team in the world at the moment. The Boks have a strong scrum, but weak backs, the wallabies have the opposite, and the All Blacks seem to have the perfect balance. Look for a huge performance from the backline, let’s just face it, rugby’s changed, the Southern style has taken over!
2nd: France, always a threat, but just lack the ability to topple NZ, and will be lucky to get to the semis, let alone the final.
3rd: Japan, here’s where the WC gets really weak. Of the bad teams, Japan is the best, but they rate nowhere near teams like the ABs, Aus, SA or the Six Nations guys. 145-19 says it all, and that was before we got world class backs (Except for Lomu of course! haha)
4th: Canada, always getting better, but still not good enough to get near the qualifying spot. Canada won’t be hanging aboot for very long, but they’ll enjoy the ride.
5th: Tonga, I want to put them third, then I want to put them fourth, but I can’t see any wins from them this year. They seem the weakest of the PI nations, and without the eligibility changes, they’ll never live up to the rugby potential they have over there. Tis a shame how rugby is owned by about four teams at a time!

Group B:
England: Always a star at the WCs, lacklustre for much of the tournament and the four years in between, but when the Web Ellis Trophy is on the line, they come out firing, every time. No one picked them in 2007, 2003 was still a surprise, so just wait and see if the Brits can pull it off again, they were the first team to make it to 2 consecutive finals after all!
Argentina: Los Pumas are getting better every year! Still not England ready, but they’ll surprise ya! Argentina could still make the semis like last time, and the four nations will only help them improve their game. Look for a possible upset over the Roses!
Scotland: Ah, the proverbial pool of death. The Scots haven’t looked the same since the 70s when they wrangled out some ties over the mighty ABs, and the Pumas are too good. They’ll be spirited against their Isles rivals, but they’ll come up short in the match and short of the knockouts!
Georgia: I’m picking an upset over Romania. That’ll be cool, the Caucasus nation
hasn’t done much in rugby history, but they’re on the rise. I hope to see them again in 2015, only I hope that they come out better at every WC.
Romania: Last, can’t say much about them, but they just aren’t doing it for me, a heated battle against Georgia is all they’ll get before packing their bags!

Group C:
Australia: Easy group winners, you’d think, but Ireland have done weirder things before. Aussie’s average at best scrum will have to improve to help their awesome backline if they want to add trophy #3 to their name!
Ireland: I can see an upset over Australia. I can see it, but it won’t happen. I love Ireland at the moment, and I reckon they’ll win their pool by 2015, its on the rise again, and they’re playing some good rugby, just wait it out, Aus lost to Samoa, perhaps they’ll lose to the Leprechauns too!
Italy: Italian rugby has always been shoddy at best IMO. Don’t expect much, they’ll probably have to grind out wins over Russia and USA, but get thrashed by Aus and Ireland.
Russia: They’re better than the Eagles, I expect them to win the Cold War clash, and come fourth, nowhere near the quarters but they’ll come out happy by beating the USA.
USA: They’ll play some good rugby, and some nice fluent rugby, but it just isn’t gonna happen. Last place for this nation who likes to pass the ball forward instead of back!

Group D:
South Africa: The Boks are mighty, always some brilliant rugby from them here, they are contenders. Expect them to easily win their pool with some great rugby. But their downfall could come, don’t write off Samoa!
Samoa: Better than the rest, fast rugby, good rugby and they beat Aussie, give them credit, quarterfinal berth to them.
Wales: Sadly, the Welsh won’t make it this year. I love the Welsh, but they just aren’t good enough to make it through at this stage… :frowning:
Fiji: Played well against the All Blacks compared to their 90-0 demise last time, but they’re a sevens team. Don’t rate them much at all as a 15s team, early bow out, but they’ll at least beat Namibia.
Namibia: Simply Useless. What can I say. They go home winless and sad. I don’t like it happening to the bad nations, but that’s what happens at World Cups, the superpowers dominate. Their journey was just to get here, congratulations, now pack your bags back to Namibia!

Quarterfinals:
Australia over Samoa. Don’t write off Samoa though, Australia won’t, because it happened just this year, Samoa over Aussie!. But I reckon the Wallabies are too strong here.
England over France. England always pull it off here at this stage. France won’t stand a chance. UNLESS they pull of a 1999 like comeback! Not impossible, just in my eyes, unlikely.
South Africa over Ireland. I want the Irish to win, but it won’t happen, the Boks are just too good and too strong for the Irish. Maybe next time!
New Zealand over Argentina. We’ve never lost to them before, but its always been close. Home crowd will do it for the All Blacks though!

Semifinals:
New Zealand over South Africa. Our backline will just run riot again if the forwards play their cards right. Otherwise, South Africa will make me cry again! I still reckon NZ over SA though.
Australia over England. Payback for 2007. Aussie will win and set up the amazing trans tasman final! Chea! I think England will win, but I want Aussie to! haha

Final:
New Zealand over Australia. Deans’ luck will run out again as NZ become champions once more. I don’t see Aussie beating us if we get to here, it just doesn’t seem right in front of a home crowd and in the final. Last time we lost in Eden Park was in 1994. Last time we had a final at Eden Park, we easily won. Nuff said, history is on our side!

And that’s Michael’s view on the World Cup 2011!

A few points:

The above quote “look for a huge performance from the backline, let’s just face it, rugby’s changed, the Southern style has taken over” probably happened in about 1905!

The quote about Lomu being the only world class back that NZ had in 1995 (when they put all those points on Japan) - well that Japan result happened with the 2nd string playing for starters. And I think Andrew Mehertens and Frank Bunce would have something to say about not being “world class”. As well as all the other guys in the backs who took part in the greatest performance I have ever seen by any rugby team ever (the 43-6 annihilation of Australia in the wind and wet at Wellington). Link here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEfiSvXLn1g

Re: England - don’t know why 2003 was a surprise. England had been the best team in the world for the previous 3 years. They were joint favourites with NZ for the tournament. They were expected to go deep into the tournament and had just beaten NZ and Australia away from home in back to back weeks in the summer tours. 2007 was a total surprise though - I’ll give you that.

Otherwise, some good stuff there. Your full work through has made me realise that history suggests Australia getting to the final might be a bit bold. Since 1987, when they lost to France in the semis, only one side has knocked Australia out of World Cups - England. Of all the SH nations, Australia are the only one I fancy England might beat. Note might though - I think I’d still go for Oz in a pinch.

Tomorrow is a full day of rugby. Tri Nations, 2 or 3 warm up games, should be awesome. Wales side for the England game looks pretty close to full strength - could be a tasty game at Twickenham.

Great predictions from Kiwirish, except this one:

The Eagles will keep passing forward until the Rugby Union wises up and changes the rules. It’s the American way!

Give us a little hope. If we can’t win even one game in some World cup we are never going to be able to develop a decent program here. One win, that is all I ask, and Russia is the only way that is going to happen. A win against Italy would be sweet but I won’t bet any money on it.

The All Blacks look ominous tonight at their spiritual home. If they are only at 75%, and still to peak, the only team that will beat them in the wc will be the All Blacks.

Wallabies - All Blacks put on a very good game. Both teams looked sharp and although the Wallabies looked a bit slow to start they finished stronger at the end. If the Wallabies had made those three penalties in the first half there only would have been one converted try in it. I don’t think they should be too disappointed with the outcome.

Just to come back to this - some revision may well be required.

First, Wales. They look fit as butchers’ dogs. Sam Warburton is playing out of his skin. Rhys Priestland has had two very solid games at 10 and, provided he shakes off a thigh injury, looks like he could step in at 10 now. Hook is in top form. The only major problems they have had have been at scrum - and Gethin Jenkins and Adam Jones haven’t played a warm up game yet. Their defence over the two games against England has been exceptional (albeit, not facing a good attacking side). If they play anywhere near this level in the group stages of the World Cup, they will beat Samoa and Fiji and qualify second.

England. Could take lessons from our local youths/rioters on planning an attack. Utterly clueless in midfield this week - no idea as to how to break a well organised defence - when your best centre is a 21 year old with one cap to his name, you’ve got serious fucking problems. Flood looked clueless with no help from Hape and Tindall. They might even have to play Wilkinson at 10 and Flood at 12, sacrificing defensive solidity for ability to score. Forwards - fucking woeful - pre-programmed bollocks, wandering around looking to be in the next pod, instead of looking at the game in front of them and attack ruck, where lo and behold, Sam Warburton or Dan Lydiate is nicking the ball again. Got a lot of penalties at scrum this weekend though, where they look traditionally strong, and presumably will kick those to win their group - but on this showing will be turfed out in the quarters by France.

Ireland - look alright - lost narrowly with a mixture of their 2nds and 3rds to Scotland (who look terrible incidentally - the England v Scotland game only needs it to rain and it could be the worst game of international rugby between two main IRB nations in the history of the World Cup) and a mixture of the 1sts and 2nds only went down narrowly against France. Need to get in the winning habit - I imagine this will start with a full run out for the 1st XV against England in just under a fortnight. Forward unit will cause Australia problems - if Quade Cooper is as flaky as he was under pressure against NZ, Ireland will win that game and top the group.

Australia - good result against SA, failure against NZ. Should get to the semis but they need to pull out another defensive performance like they did this weekend to get past Ireland. Mentioned him already but Quade Cooper is a worry for me. If he’s not on it, he’ll cost you games - especially as I would be sending back rowers and large centres at his channel all day long until he does his turnstile impression.

SA - will be disappointed that they didn’t win on Saturday despite dominating possession. John Smit is done - they looked much better when Bismarck Du Plessis came on. Might be keeping their powder dry to peak at the right time - but as with Ireland, they need to win some games soon to get into the winning habit.

NZ - er, yeah. Still going to win this tournament at a canter. No one is in the same league at the moment.

England’s problem at the moment is inconsistency. One game they’re playing some pretty great rugby and the next they’re hopeless.

England’s problems at the moment are (a) they’re desperately short of backs who can do anything other than bash and bosh (Hape and Banahan, I’m looking at you) and (b) they’re a limited attacking side who refuse to recognise their limitations. If they’d realised after 30 minutes that their offense was eight men and Flood’s kicking foot and decided to win with eight men and Flood’s kicking foot, they could probably have done it. Instead they wasted possession on clueless back-row move after clueless back-row move, usually straight into a massed defence that had stopped expecting speed or subtlety and was piling in in numbers to contest the breakdown.

As for Wales, a heroic defensive performance, but if New Zealand or Australia had had all England’s possession and territory, the game would probably have been over by half-time. Allowing the opposition to run phase after phase in your 22 may win the occasional game (France vs NZ, 2003), it won’t win you a World Cup.

For those picking the All Black Big Bottling Men to sweep all before them - with hindsight, which was their worst choke? Are they a greater favourite this year than in previous WCs, or have they been similarly favoured before?

I ask as a casual fan; the ABs are always massive favourites in the popular press, but maybe the cognoscenti didn’t fancy them quite so much in some WCs.
Personally I feel choking is habit-forming and the weight of expectation will crush them - it would be interesting to know if they’ve been so heavily favoured prior to previous chokes.

Not a New Zealander but the one I would put above all others is 2007. Comfortably the best team on the planet - had swept all before them for the previous 4 years. Binned it in the quarter finals. Even factoring in the decisions that they didn’t get and the ones that France did, they still could have won that game by taking a drop goal - which for God only knows what reason, they wouldn’t take until Luke McAllister took a pot at goal after they’d passed up easier opportunities. They’d have thumped England in the semi (itself a classic choke job from France as it turned out) and they’d probably have dealt easily enough with SA in the final.

Then probably 1999 - though this was less a choke than France put together 40 minutes of sheer genius that few/any sides would have resisted. This type of thing happens sometimes - they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time when France decided to go “fuck it, let’s give it some”. For objectivity, France played like crap the following week against Australia in the final - had they played like that against NZ, the ABs would have finished the game 30 points to the good.

Then 1995 - best team in the tournament but came up against the force of South Africa on a red letter day for the country (and the perhaps mysterious Suzie and her tube of botulism in the hotel the night before, depending on who you believe).

In 1991, Australia were just as good as NZ - not a choke in my view. They were favourites before the tournament but not as clear as they might have been. Oz were definitely strong too. 2003 - not a choke either; joint favourites before hand with England, who had just beaten them in Wellington despite being reduced to 13 men at one point. It is by no means a given that they beat England even if Spencer doesn’t throw the interception to Mortlock.

This is a bit different though. NZ are the best team but this time they are home. No other nation is close to them - in the other tournaments, there was another threat lurking elsewhere. The draw opens right up for them - they’ve got prospectively the easiest QF draw against Pool B, meaning that they should get through to face a weakening SA in the semi. It’s all set up. It’s not quite as simple as just turning up - but shouldn’t be too far off.

I am a New Zealander and I agree completely with Cumbrian’s analysis above.

While last time was the worst choke for my money the 1995 team was the best All Black team not to win a World Cup. And I’ll go to my grave saying they were poisoned before the final. Hell even Rory Steyn - the South African assigned to oversee security for the All Blacks later said:

(Quote from Wikipedia’s 1995 World CUp final page)

Great replies thanks. I’d like to see them win it just for family I have in NZ. [Hate it when casual football fans say biscuit-arsed things like that about the football WC, but there you have it :)]

If one of the All Blacks would just step on John Smit’s shoulder/elbow/knee during a random ruck on Saturday, the nation of South Africa would be most eternally gratefully - nothing too serious mind, just enough to keep him out of action for about two months. It would force de Villiers to appoint another captain who is not a deadweight and pick Bismark as first choice hooker.

I think it would make for a hugely better World Cup - as it stands, SA could bow out at the quarterfinals, and I think that would be a huge pity for the game.

Grim

Bollocks - it would only be a huge pity for SA rugby fans. No-one else cares.

What’s going on with the Wallabies? Changing captains a month out is unusual to say the least, and as for leaving Giteau behind strikes me as a terrible idea. Perhaps Cantabrian Robbie Deans is trying to torpedo the Aussies from within.

On the games front this week we get to see the probable Springbok A side in what should be a good match against the All Blacks tonight.

Are you new to rugby? England winning in 2003 wasn’t a surprise to anyone in the northern hemisphere, even if we did feel they’d peaked a little before the tournament started. (Please, never, ever call England ‘The Brits’. Scotland and Wales are both also in Britain. )

What on earth do you mean Scotland haven’t looked the same since the 70s? Other than a few wins against England Scotland did nothing in the 70s. They lost all the games they played against NZ (the draws were in the 60s and 1983). By contrast the 80s and early 90s were the best time for Scotland since before the war - they won the Grand Slam in 1984 and 1990, narrowly lost a world cup semi (and subsequent play off against NZ) in 1991. Scotland also won the championship in 1986 and 1999.

While Scotland have been crap in the last couple of 6 nations, are you aware they won their last 2 games against Argentina, last year in Argentina?

I feel it’s less an irony and more an effect - there wasn’t a place for our form of rugby once the US and Canadian rules became so popular in those countries in the 19th century.

And we’re leading 15-5 (four penalties and a drop goal to an unconverted try) at half-time having shut out the All Blacks until the 35th minute - not what I would have predicted.

South Africa went on to win 18-5, to remind us all that you don’t need to score tries to win if you’ve got an exceptionally good goal kicker.

Other things the game reminded me:
-Colin Slade isn’t anywhere nearly as good as Dan Carter (to be fair to Slade no other NZ first-fives are either).
-linebreaks and exciting backline play are all well and good but you have to get points to win.
-the All Blacks still have no plan B, if the tries aren’t coming they don’t seem to be able to adapt.

On a completely unrelated note the weirdness in the Australian squad continues with James O’Connor missing the announcement of the world squad due to a hangover. (Which is particularly funny because he looks like he’s only about sixteen years old)