Agreed about the red. It’s one thing to put in a hit like that in the heat of the moment when competing for possession; to do it about 3 seconds after an obvious knock-on that means you’ll be getting the ball anyway is another (I mean, it was probably a red regardless of that, but it made it particularly egregious and unnecessary, not to mention idiotic).
Don’t quite agree about “no risks at all” - I mean, the result was never in doubt after the first half, so I can forgive them being more expansive as the game wore on, but I reckon Jones will be quite cross about the fact they conceded right at the end, having had the opportunity to end the game more than once prior to that. OK, the seven points makes no difference, but what if someone had picked up an injury in that extra 90 seconds of unnecessary play? I felt they were deservedly punished by that USA score for that slight lack of professionalism. And Vunipola threw the ball away earlier on trying to prevent it going into touch - it fell to American hands and had they held it, could have been a breakaway. Better teams will punish us for such things, hopefully they are relatively easy to cut out; in both respects, much like the penalties at the breakdown vs Tonga.
I watched the Canada v Italy game, but England v USA was just too late for me.
Canada were their own worst enemy, after conceding a couple of quick tries earlier, they almost got back into the game in the first half, but every time they created a good chance they bombed it by dropping the last pass. Italy looked sharp and had some really good players, most impressive after such a short turnaround from their first game. Their loose trio all had storming games, and their little full back put in some great tackles to deny Canada time and again. While I doubt they will beat South Africa and New Zealand I think they probably deserve to make the quarters. They’re certainly a lot better than I expected.
I didn’t see the game, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they flattered to deceive a bit against a weaker side. If they don’t beat SA or NZ then they don’t really ‘deserve’ to make the quarters. But they’re definitely knocking on the door - I think if they can keep developing, QFs at the next World Cup is a realistic target for them.
Good points, ‘deserve’ isn’t quite the right word. I guess I meant to say that Italy is a team that wouldn’t look out of place in a world cup quarter final. Just shows the standard of the Six Nations these days to be able to say that about the perennial wooden spooner.
England look to be a real contender for me. I can’t see them losing to Argentina or France and wouldn’t be surprised if they’re in the mix to win it all.
I was surprised by that, Ireland looked as solid as anyone in their first match but Japan were just so well drilled and rapid to react. Ireland off the boil and there we go, Brighton all over again.
Really good for the tournament though, it always benefits from the reminder that anything is possible.
Japan winning v Ireland is good for the game in general.
If the game is to go world-wide, it must give countries apart from the 10 ‘tier 1’ opportunities.
It would help, for example, if there was promotion and relegation from the Six Nations. Unfortunately the current 6 want to keep their revenue and haven’t agreed.
That was a game and a half from Japan. They dominated Ireland in the second half, to the point where the Irish were happy to kick the ball out on 80 minutes and protect their losing bonus point. Japan looked very well trained and very fit and you don’t often say that about a Tier II side.
The result has left the pool wide open - Ireland can still guarantee a quarter-final with two bonus-point wins, Scotland are in last chance saloon but 3 from 3 probably still gets them through - and if they slip up against Samoa then Samoa have a real shot. Japan (and the organisers) must be praying that they don’t do what they did last time - win 3 from 4 and go out on bonus points.
The trouble with that is that it’s not clear that relegating Italy - where they’ve been trying hard to get the game established - to bring in a weaker side for one season really helps the lesser nations any. (It doesn’t help at all that the prospective replacement is Georgia, who are small, poor and distant.)
It is a tricky one, I’m a fan of promotion and relegation in priciple and I think I’d be in favour. Set up a second tier national tournament and each year the top of that league plays the bottom team of the six nations. Nothing like a bit of jeopardy to spice things up.
Oh, I agree. If it was possible to set up a second-division with 6 teams that could give Italy/Georgia a competitive game and which would be financially sustainable, I’d be all in favour of a promotion/relegation system.
The trouble is that right now most of the teams in such a league would be at the Russia/Namibia/Canada level - i.e strictly Tier III and fodder for even the mid-tier nations. Given that, I don’t think such a league would either be able to support itself or attract enough public interest to make the whole thing worthwhile. And the tiny player bases and lack of any organised competition below the national level will keep holding the weaker sides back. I don’t know whether the best way to change this is to start from the bottom or the top.
Good game to watch for the neutral (i.e. I pretty much hate both of them ������). Australia just too many errors in the end, brilliant from Wales to keep that last penalty in touch, and they deserved to hold on in my opinion.
Heart-in-mouth stuff for Wales there - did just enough to hold on at the end.
Australia looked a different team when Toomua came on for Foley - around 60-65 minutes it looked like they might win comfortably. But ultimately the poor first half did for them - it’s tough to come back from 3 scores down against a top defence.
Will Genia must be kicking himself for throwing that interception pass.
Probably irrelevant thought: I checked out the tournament rules and it appears (rule 2.3) that unlike the Six Nations, there are no extra points awarded for winning all your pool matches. So it is theoretically possible for a team winning 3 matches to top a pool ahead of a team that has won all 4 of their matches (if the team winning 4 matches gets ‘only’ 16 points, and the team winning three gets 4 tries in all their matches and loses the fourth by 7 points or fewer, those getting a total of 17 points). I assume the organisers didn’t see this as a major problem since in that scenario both teams qualify for the KO anyway (and no other team could get close to them). Plus of course it’s incredibly unlikely. Nevertheless, it feels a bit wrong that a team could win all its pool matches and finish second in the pool! They would be justifiably aggrieved if it meant they faced tougher QF opponents.
