The 2019 Rugby World Cup (RWC) thread (spoilers almost guaranteed during and after games)

The Game Room
141

Remember the bookies only set the odds initially - after that, the odds will move depending on how much money has backed each side. Which can make the latest odds a better predictor, given the ‘weight of money’ is behind them. They effectively represent an average of all the opinions among those who have placed a wager.

Translating these to percentages (trying to take into account the bookies’ margin/overge/vig):

ENG 73% AUS 27%
NZ 82% IRE 18%
WAL 72% FRA 28%
SA 77% JAP 23%

Incidentally the margin on the last game seems to be much larger than any of the others - my guess is because less money has been wagered on it than the other 3, but Japan do look good value to me at those odds.

I doubt I am a typical fan, but as I posted earlier, my ‘problem’ with Wales or Ireland winning is the bragging rights. I know a lot more Welsh and Irish people than South Africans or New Zealanders. To be honest I wouldn’t much care either way who won, but I think ideally I’d prefer SA or NZ in that scenario. I mean, everyone knows NZ are the best, so winning the World Cup is par for the course.

In general I do agree, for example I’m happy to see Scottish teams do well apart from against England. And I agree the hatred of Maradona has nothing to do with his nationality, more that he is a cheating, drug-addled scumbag. But the fact remains he represents Argentina’s victory over England in that World Cup, so the team and country is ‘guilty’ by association. Then there is the Falklands. I don’t particularly care whether those islands remain part of the UK or not, but evidently those who live there do, and Argentina were the aggressors - no doubt hoping for some oil exploration rights to prop up their failed economy. I feel sorry for the Argentinians who have been stuck with a succession of failed governments.

Yes, the Scottish football team peaked in about 1978 and has been going gradually downhill ever since. The rugby team have followed a not dissimilar trajectory in that time but in the last few years have seemed poised for a comeback to the big time. Unfortunately, they haven’t quite made it yet.

As above, it depends entirely on how much money is backing each team. I tend to agree with you that the odds for the underdogs generally look better value than the favourites. On the other hand, that’s what the bookies want you to think - the more balanced their book, the less risk to them.

I’d put Eng/Aus as close to 50/50. England do have an edge but they could choke in a big game. If I were to bet on it, it would be a modest amount on Australia to hedge against my disappointment.

Wal/Fra is also tough to call with the Wales injuries, but I’d guess at 60% Wales, 40% France.

142

Ah, yes - the infamous declaration before Argentina '78 that “We’re going to win the World Cup!” Interesting given that the Scottish team hadn’t (and still hasn’t) ever advanced beyond the group stage of a major tournament that it had entered.

143

I know that I’ve been rather pessimistic about Australia’s chances in this competition, but if I were a betting man, I’d think about putting some money on the Wallabies at those odds. You’re getting almost three to one, and I think that the chance of “good Australia” and “bad England” turning up are strong enough to make it a reasonable bet.

144

That abbreviation for Japan is generally considered offensive in most English-speaking countries (with the possible exception of Hong Kong). Probably not a great choice of words. I’d abbreviate Japan as JPN.

I’m glad the Japan-Scotland game was played, but nobody should have complained had it been called off. The idea that they could up and move an event of that magnitude somewhere else is just silly.

You have to move players and coaches and spectators and tv crew and journalists / media / photographers and trainers and coaches and cooks and buses and bus drivers and police/security and medical staff and the gadzillion of other people and vehicles involved in events like this - all those vehicles need to go somewhere, and all those people presumably would need to eat and sleep somewhere; good luck getting all of that sorted out, on short notice, after the biggest hurricane in 50+ years.

Scotland whining about lawsuits and ‘collateral damage’ - after a storm that killed dozens - came across quite badly. Embarrassing, really.

145

I think there is a distinction to be made between the abbreviation/shorthand JAP (note the all-caps), referring to the country, and the word Jap (or Japs) referring to people, I would certainly never use the latter. However, I agree with your post in its entirety, and JPN is a better abbreviation anyway (as well as being the ISO code for Japan) so your point is taken - thanks.

146

During the period 1987 to 2011 the All Blacks were comfortably the best rugby team on the planet … except for an aggregate of a bare few, though crucial, days.

[evil grin]A grand time to be an Aussie. [/evil grin]

147

OK - here’s some “cast-iron” predictions then, for everyone to point at and laugh come Sunday afternoon/evening.

Only one of these games looks like it is going to be close and it’s England-Australia. England’s selection looks…well, it looks bloody odd to my mind. Ford has been one of England’s best players and Farrell has looked out of sorts. Slade has played 40 mins, Mako Vunipola has had limited game time and Billy Vunipola is carrying an injury, plus, as noted in my first post on this thread, England can be pretty flakey and have a tendency to bomb big games. Set against this, they’ve won the last 6 straight against Australia (but doesn’t this mean, simply, that they’re due a loss?) and have had some time to rest and recuperate that the Aussies haven’t as much. I’m not confident that England will win this game and am already seeing a few rugby journalists saying the selection should be judged on the result. Bollocks - this is outcome based thinking. You make your decisions based on what you know at the time not on whether you get lucky with someone getting a red card or something. I’d have gone the other way on almost all the decisions of substance on selection (as the evidence says, play Marler and bring Mako on, don’t play Billy if he’s injured and don’t drop your form playmaker and move Tuilagi out of 13) so consequently, put me down for a - narrow - Australia win.

France are dreadful and will lose to Wales.

Ireland are, if not quite dreadful, nowhere near as good as they were when they strangled the ABs twice in three matches, and will lose to NZ.

Japan have played wonderful rugby, reminiscent of when I was taught how to play - quick ball is golden, so get to ground, flood the ruck area and get it away quickly while the defence is on the back foot. What is evident is that, as this style has gone out of the game over the last 30 years, teams nowadays are struggling to cope with something that they have not seen before - if the ABs decided that they were going to play like this a) everyone would try and copy them and b) they’d crucify everybody in the meantime. They haven’t ambushed Ireland and Scotland (given that cards were marked following Brighton 2015 - still the biggest RWC shock since it came out of the blue, unlike the Ireland game in this World Cup). They’ve been a breath of fresh air and I have thoroughly enjoyed watching them. Unfortunately, this is where it ends I think. They’re going to get ground down by a defensively more competent team who will be able to keep the ball off them better than Scotland or Ireland were capable of. SA to win by more than 10 points.

Re: penultima thule’s comment. A little overstated. Australia were definitely better than NZ for the latter part of 1999 through to 2001 (the Rugby Championship results support this) and England were better than NZ for most of 2002 and 2003 (the John Mitchell regime has a lot to answer for - of course, he’s now on England’s coaching staff, so fun times for us). There are other pockets of time when Australia were definitely better too - my memory of the 1991 World Cup is that NZ were pretty poor to be honest and got deservedly beaten in the semi by Australia. It’s fair to say they’re generally better though.

148

Hard to argue with any of that. I’d just say that none of us is in the England training camp - if the team as selected has been performing fabulously in training, that would be a fair reason for it being as it is. If they perform on Saturday, that will indeed justify it. As you rightly say though, if they perform poorly but win anyway thanks to (for example) helpful refereeing, that would not. Broadly I do have faith in Eddie Jones, but like you I’m not confident. This is the denouement of his entire time with England.

If the QFs go as you suggest, we should be in for some cracking semis, both of which will potentially be close.

149

Australia have picked two large centres, so England have gone for three good tacklers at 10,12 + 13.
I agree Slade is a risk with limited playing time.
Mako is a world-class player (and inspires his brother!)
I thought Billy had fully recovered from his injury.
Finally winning 6 straight times does not mean you are due a loss (ask the All-Blacks!)

150

On the areas where I have something to say, which is not on all of these:

I think Ford’s weakness as a tackler is over-stated. When he’s played how many times have we been blown up? He didn’t start in the pivotal matches in the 2015 group stage and we lost those anyway. I get the logic - and I am not saying you’re an adherent to it - but I’m not sure the evidence is conclusive. I’d rather we focused on what Ford can do, which is fire the back line. Not that England are playing NZ, but history shows that you need to crack 25-30 points to beat NZ. You’re not going to do it by scoring in increments of 3.

Billy Vunipola looked pretty crocked to my eyes when he came off v Argentina. I guess we’re going to find out.

Final comment - yes, was somewhat flippant. Nevertheless, my natural pessimism strikes again (I can even show you a message I sent to my mates on WhatsApp before England played the Czech Republic in a recent Euro 2020 qualifier; some journo had remarked that England hadn’t lost a qualifier in over a decade - to which I said, well, aren’t we due? We lost 2-1).

151

Game on in the first quarterfinal.

152

… and game over. Good Australia showed up in the first half but they couldn’t break down the defence and they reverted to Bad Australia as the second half went on. Koroibete is a monster - there were times he looked like he could beat England on his own - but despite having 2/3 of the possession and covering lots of ground the rest of the backs never really threatened.

153

Well, so, what do I know? Australia-England was close for a bit until England really ratcheted up the pressure in the 2nd half and Australia’s skills let them down under that pressure. Even in that tight first half, England were ahead much of the time because Australia struggled to break the defence aside from returns of kicks or broken field play in their own half; they really struggled to break England down once the defensive lines were set, whereas England scored relatively quickly off few phases of play (this is one reason why the possession stats are so skewed towards Australia - they laboured through many phases to make ground, particularly in the first half - and England scored all their tries off 4 or 5 phases or fewer plus some opportunism). The game was effectively won and lost by the performances of Mako Vunipola, Jamie George, Maro Itoje, Sam Underhill and Tom Curry versus their opposite numbers - these 5 tackled very well and out-thought and out-fought Australia at the breakdown - particularly on defence, I thought they played the ref very well, knowing exactly what they could get away within what they couldn’t (if I were Garces, I’d have had someone in white in the bin in the middle of the 2nd half for offences in the 22). The scoreline was perhaps a bit much but was a reflection of the need for Australia needing to take risks later in the game to try and get back into it - the last try in particular was cruel.

On the other stuff I moaned about - OK, Mako was evidently fit. Billy Vunipola didn’t look like he was firing full bore and I am still concerned about his fitness. Slade is not fit - his injury and recovery seems to have lost him a yard of pace (needing to chip through rather than finishing the 2nd try, giving up the ghost in the chase back for one of Australia’s tries). I thought Ford looked excellent when he came on and the team gelled better with him at 10 and Farrell at 12 (and given what I have said about my opinion of Ford’s defensive frailties, I don’t think it was necessary for Farrell to play at 10 to start with - but fair enough, they did soak up a lot of tackles at the start and Ford had the benefit of coming on with the hard yards largely done). I have to concede Jones knows what he’s doing - he’d better because he’s going to need a plan for next week.

Agree that Koroibete was fantastic - the best match up on the pitch was him versus Watson, both of whom seemed to be able skin the other at will - and there’s the makings of a decent enough side there (was impressed by the teenage centre whose name escapes me and Toomua has impressed me throughout the tournament) but they look like they need a new coach and an injection of some new ideas. With Pocock and Genia retiring, new blood seems a given.

Ireland played about as well as they were allowed to play and got summarily doored by a very ominous looking NZ side. Ireland are in a similar boat to Australia I think, in that they need some new ideas and probably a bit of a changing of the guard, working out which players will get them to RWC 2023 and jettisoning the rest. It seems obvious now that they peaked between World Cups; whilst winning 6Ns matters and getting wins in Tests against good sides is important, the game has evolved into being judged at this tournament and, it has to be said, they’ve not got it right.

I am likely going to miss the semi finals as I am travelling. Might be a good thing - was pessimistic about Australia with little justification, but NZ are going to be different altogether. For starters, England can’t afford to kick as loosely as they did in the first half of this match, or they’re going to get hammered.

154

Actually, I think they were Bad Australia for quite a bit of the first half too. They appeared to be a bit unlucky in a couple of places, but much of the “unlucky” stuff came from bad decisions, poor passes, and poor ball control. They couldn’t turn their first 10 minutes of pressure into points, thanks to some excellent England defense and also to the Wallabies’ own errors. The intercept try seems a bit unlucky, but it’s a pass that never should have been thrown. It was clearly over, for me, when the Aussies failed to score after being camped on the England line in the middle of the second half. The English tackling was fantastic, but the Wallabies didn’t help themselves with too many predictable, flat-footed take-ups off the side of the rucks and mauls. Then the power of the English forwards really began to tell in the second half, with the Wallabies having few answers.

I hate to sound like sour grapes, because Australia definitely deserved to lose the game, but there was some bullshit going on in the mauls from England, and the referee did a terrible job of policing them. The scrums, too, needed a much firmer hand, although I will say that I think there should be more penalties for the scrum half not getting the ball into the scrum in a timely manner, and Australia was at least as guilty of this as any other side in the tournament. Will Genia, in some of the scrums, had plenty of opportunity to feed the ball, and delayed, resulting in a collapse and reset. He seemed to be gambling that the English front row would be penalized, but that’s a dangerous gamble to take, especially when you should be winning the scrum on your own feed anyway. He won one or two penalties that way, but also conceded one for not putting the ball in, and one for an Aussie collapse.

I agree with Cumbrian that Australia just looked out of ideas. Much of their sparkle came from pieces of individual brilliance, and the predictability of their attack was only made more obvious later in the morning, watching the All Blacks run riot against Ireland. I don’t really care who wins the first semi-final, but if I were betting my own money on the game, I just can’t see England beating the All Blacks.

155

I think that Vahaamaina’s elbow may give down as one of the stupidest act of foul play in World Cup history. To deliberately elbow an opponent in the head while nine points up, hot on attack and early in the second half is worse than a crime, it’s a mistake. You don’t need to be a Poirot to identify the villain (and it wasn’t Moriarty).

And yet the French almost held on to win it anyway.

156

The French did’t just give away a mindless red card, they also kicked badly, messed up multiple possessions near the opponents’ line and still nearly held on for the the win against a Welsh side that started slow and never really showed much attacking threat. Wales are going to have to step it up against South Africa.

South Africa planned to kill Japan with power and killed them with power. It wasn’t pretty, but the high-pace offloading game doesn’t work when you’re being crushed at the set-pieces and your runners are repeatedly being hit behind the gain line. It went a lot like those old 5-Nations games with Scotland or Ireland against England or France when we still talked about “Celtic minors” - 30 minutes of heroic action, 30 minutes of increasingly desperate holding on as the power tells, 20 minutes of getting smashed at the end. By the time it was 3-11 Japan had no way back.

157

Yeah, watching the first half, it was quite easy to be impressed with Japan. There were times when they did manage to gain ground, and when their sheer hustle and commitment, combined with their flair, made them look dangerous and kept them in the game. But when you have that much ball, and you’re attacking so relentlessly, and you still find yourself going backwards, it becomes hard to see where the points are going to come from. I agree with you: once the Sprinkboks’ lead was out beyond a converted try, Japan were basically done.

158

Pretty much my sentiments about QF #4. The fact that JPN had the ball so much in the first half but could come away with only 3 points was not a good sign for them. Once RSA established its superiority in “physicality” in the 2nd half it was pretty much “curtains” for Japan.

159

England v New Zealand should be a great game. The two most in form teams in the tournament going head to head. I think it’ll be an epic contest.

South Africa v Wales looks a little more one sided. South Africa have looked strong despite losing their first game and Wales unconvincing despite winning all theirs. Maybe Wales can do just enough to win again but I doubt it.

160

Go you mad Pommie bastards!