Rugby

[ljkeane]

Under 2 weeks to go to the World Cup now and all the squads are in although there might be a few changes after today's games. A few surprises for me, Flutey getting left out of England's squad is a bit of concern given the apparent lack of any creativity in midfield at all now. I didn't expect Sivivatu not make the All Black squad despite a slow year, he's still probably the best winger in the world when on song in my book. O'Leary completely missing the plane and Australia changing cpatains at the last minute was also a bit unexpected. On a positive note I was a bit worried Tonga'uiha wasn't going after he missed the Churchill Cup but he's in the Tonga squad which makes the first game far more interesting.

Today's games were a bit of a mixed bag. Australia will get a boost from beating New Zealand and winning the Tri Nations for the first times in a while, they were all over them in the first half as well. New Zeland won't be happy with losing but I was impressed with the way they were able to change their game when needed and get back in to it in the second half. More of a concern will be the injury to Reid, if he misses the World Cup it'll be a big blow.

In the Northern Hemisphere game both sides were a bit disjointed but England will be happy with the win, they got decent paced ball for a lot of the game and Tuilagi looked like he can at least get over the gainline pretty consistently in midfield. I thought Wigglesworth was reasonable as well. From the Irish perspective that they really didn't look like creating much at all will be a concern despite there being players to come back. Four losses on the bounce isn't too clever either.

[Fireball07]

David Wallace out of the world cup :( :(

I am absolutely gutted....the man is an absolute legend, and has been for years for both and Ireland and Munster. Probably my favourite rugby player ever, I love watching him play, always has a great attitude, extremely consistent and he is a really nice guy. It's a terrible blow for him, it's his last World Cup and he deserves to be involved- he's still going as well as ever, a very skilful player- one of the best ball carriers around, even at his age. Seeing him in extreme pain, knowing he was going to miss the World Cup actually hurt me, I felt really sorry for him.

I hope it's not the end of his career, it'd be a horrible way to go.

As for the performance, that was shit too. Poor Wally...

[Black Wizard]

How are France looking for the World Cup? I'm toying with the idea of betting on them to win.

[Fireball07]

How are France looking for the World Cup? I'm toying with the idea of betting on them to win.

They're good but I dunno...they're unpredictable. Ireland played poorly against them twice and went close both times. I don't think they'll win it.

[ljkeane]

Yeah I'd be very surprised if France won the World Cup. They're talented but they don't work well as a team particularly often and Lievremont looks a pretty bad coach to me. Having said that it's probably going to be a bit of surprise if anyone but New Zealand or Australia win the World Cup and I doubt you'd get particularly good odds on either of them. :dunno:

[Black Wizard]

New Zealand have choked in every World Cup since they won the first one.

[The Anti-Targ]

Today's games were a bit of a mixed bag. Australia will get a boost from beating New Zealand and winning the Tri Nations for the first times in a while, they were all over them in the first half as well. New Zeland won't be happy with losing but I was impressed with the way they were able to change their game when needed and get back in to it in the second half. More of a concern will be the injury to Reid, if he misses the World Cup it'll be a big blow.

Well, yes and no (bolded bit). Sure they came out in the 2nd half completely changing the game and hammering the Aussie Forwards. BUT, it took Coach Henry giving them a dressing room blasting to do it. Where were the old heads making on-field changes in tactics. McCaw and Carter especially (but also Nonu, Muliaina and Weepu) should have seen that plan A was being disrupted and made a tactical shift with about 10 minutes of the first half to go. The last 2 RWCs have seen the ABs stick to plan A for too long through a game (or through the entire game) and lose as a result. They need to have a strong plan B and one that the team can implement without having to speak directly to the coach.

New Zealand have choked in every World Cup since they won the first one.

Completely untrue.

In the '95 RWC the ABs, almost to a man, had food poisoning, some of them going to the sidelines during breaks in play and puking their guts out. Yet they still took South Africa to extra time. That's not choking, that's going down in style. It's still an open question as to whether the food poisoning was deliberate (by British bookies, not South Africans) or not. But that they had bad food poisoning on game day is established fact.

[The WaterDancer Knight]

How are France looking for the World Cup? I'm toying with the idea of betting on them to win.

It might be a very good idea to do that. If you look at the RWC history France has always performed the best when the team was definitely not the favourite and even barely an outsider. And that's exactly how the French team is seen by most people for this RWC. Who regularly forget that except for the 91 RWC, we always made it to the semi final or the final.

I'm confident we can make it to the final this year again. The two victories against Ireland were interesting. It was two different teams that started each game, with only Swarzeski and Pelisson in common. That means Lievremont has a very homogeneous group of 30 players to choose from for each game. And I'll be very surprised if he doesn't rotate between those 30 players during the group stage. Those games showed they could play as a team very well but not for a long time. If they could play that well for 60 or 80 minutes rather than just 30 minutes, those guys can beat any other team during the RWC.

As always with French it's a matter of believing we can do it.

[Black Wizard]

In the '95 RWC the ABs, almost to a man, had food poisoning, some of them going to the sidelines during breaks in play and puking their guts out. Yet they still took South Africa to extra time. That's not choking, that's going down in style. It's still an open question as to whether the food poisoning was deliberate (by British bookies, not South Africans) or not. But that they had bad food poisoning on game day is established fact.

So in one World Cup they puked instead of choked. I'd just put it down to nerves. :P

[Vestrit]

New Zealand have choked in every World Cup since they won the first one.

At the risk of feeding the trolls, I'm going to reply to this.

The 'choker' tag that NZ has for the World Cup annoys me a lot. Not because I'm a New Zealander and feel fiercely patriotic or anything like that, but because I actually think it's untrue and has become a bit of a myth that other countries, NH in particular, like to wheel out because they don't like the All Blacks or NZ rugby fans (to be fair, I'm a New Zealander and I don't like most NZ rugby fans). It also shows that, despite how well or badly NZ are actually performing at the time, everyone still makes them favourites regardless.

It also annoys me because, when someone says it, that tells me that that person know very little about rugby history and is either too lazy or too stupid to be able to do even the most rudimentary analysis of the six World Cups so far. I expect that on the Guardian boards, where the majority of posters are idiots, but I expect better on this board.

So, at a basic level, here is a review of NZ's performance at the past six World Cups:

1987: Questions over how good they were going into the tournament, but at the WC were unquestionably the best side and won it relatively easily

1991: Probably the third, or at best, second best side going into the tournament (behind Australia). Ageing, injury-struck and complacent side, strange selection decisions, a couple of years of disharmony within the side leading into it. Lost the semi-final to Australia, who had beaten NZ twice in their three most recent meetings prior to the tournament. Came third after scraping through in an awful 3/4 play-off game against Scotland

1995: Without doubt the best side going into the tournament, playing a style of game that changed rugby and set the template for some of the attitudes and practices still being used today. Entire side bar Zinzan Brooke and Frank Bunce were struck down by food poisoning the day before the final. Plus, SA was a country trying to reinvent itself and had Morgan Freeman Nelson Mandela on their side

1999: a truly awful NZ side. No tight five, arguably* the best fullback in the world playing everywhere except fullback, a flyhalf who was a drunk, a completely mis-used Jonah Lomu, and in Taine Randell a captain who was so lazy that even his own Otago teammate Josh Kronfeld publicly questioned how the guy could effectively captain the side. How anyone thought we were favourites was beyond me at the time. When France came back at us in that semi-final, it exposed the softness, the lack of street smarts, of tight forward technique, of tactical nous and of the appalling 'brand' culture that had built up around the side. The 'choking' tag comes from that semi-final, but anybody watching the All Blacks for the two years going into that tournament should not have been surprised by what happened that day. On a positive note, at least it meant John Hart was sacked

2003: 2nd best side there, behind England, who were streets ahead of any other side at the tournament (the fact that WC final went to extra-time shows just how stupid the referee was when it came to scrums). Apart from Mealamu and Jack, we had no tight five, and in players like Ali Williams and So'ioalo, we had naive forwards who thought test rugby was about tap kicks, fancy long balls and show-boating. That said, if it hadn't been for some appalling refereeing, Umaga's knee, Nonu's lack of defensive understanding, and Marshall breaking his ribs, we could have won that semi-final, and I think England might have blinked (but I wouldn't bet on it) if it had been NZ not Aussie in the final. On the plus side, at least it ended Leon MacDonald's career.

2007: We choked. Probably one of the most text-book examples of choking you could ever see. So much so, that Jon Smit used NZ's paralysis in the face of adversity to snap his side out of their freeze when SA were in the shit against Fiji the next day. You can blame poor management of the side and the misfortune of having a ridiculously easy pool, but yeah, in 2007 we totally choked.

So, out of six world cups, one definite choke.

[Adept Havelock]

If they don't win this world cup the all-blacks chokers tie will be firmly attached for all time. They have the best team by a mile - forwards and backs, a great mix of youth, players at there peak and experienced heads and a top notch coach as well as home advantage.

I also disagree with your assertions on past squad strengths. New Zealand have had the best or second best squad for every World Cup. A return of one trophy is very poor.

[ljkeane]

If they don't win this world cup the all-blacks chokers tie will be firmly attached for all time. They have the best team by a mile - forwards and backs, a great mix of youth, players at there peak and experienced heads and a top notch coach as well as home advantage.

They have the best team and they're rightly favourites but I don't know about them having the best team by a mile. Australia really aren't that far behind with their team built around the Super 15 winners in the Reds.

New Zealand have a better tight five but Australia's is pretty solid now with the likes of Horwill, Alexander and Moore making them far more competitive than they have been in the past. There's really not much at all between the back rows now McCaw is fading a bit and Pocock is stepping up well. In the halfbacks Australia have the better 9 in Genia by a distance and while Carter's clearly the better 10 Cooper is capable of pulling off something special even if he's less consistent. Out wide Australia probably have the better outside backs with 13 being the only position I'd say that the All Blacks are clearly superior in.

[Vestrit]

If they don't win this world cup the all-blacks chokers tie will be firmly attached for all time. They have the best team by a mile - forwards and backs, a great mix of youth, players at there peak and experienced heads and a top notch coach as well as home advantage.

As ljkeane says, I disagree with the 'by a mile' comment. Australia have been worrying me for quite some time now, and until the weekend were doing a good job of quietly sneaking up the outside. They may have blown their cover. The other great advantage Australia has is that they're not scared of losing to the All Blacks, whereas All Blacks is terrified of losing to Australia.

I also disagree with your assertions on past squad strengths. New Zealand have had the best or second best squad for every World Cup. A return of one trophy is very poor.

As I said above, we had the best squad on three occasions: 1987 (won it), 1995 (food poisoning plus up against Nelson Mandela), 2007 (choked).

Maybe we had the second best squad each other occasion, but you don't expect the second best team to win the title, you expect the best team too. I would argue that we underachieved by failing to make the final in 2003, where England still should have won if there was any justice, but in 1991 we were knocked out in the semis by the best team at the tournament. And the 1999 team was just awful (seriously, name our forward pack. I can't even remember who our two locks were, and I think our number eight might have been Scott Robertson, that's how bad that side was) and we got our just desserts for thinking that three years of playing basketball in the Super 12 prepared you for a world cup.

[Adept Havelock]

OK I take back my 'by a mile' comment, but I still say there is clear air between them and Australia especially if you include squad strength from 1 to 30 rather than 1 to 15.

I will reiterate that NZ NEED to win this tournament. They've been the best or very close to it pretty much since international rugby began, certainly since the WC era began and all they've got to show for it is a 24 year old victory that most of there current squad won't even remember. The northern hemisphere teams are weak at the moment and Australia very rarely beat NZ in NZ, hell NZ have the best home record in rugby (look at England's record against them). Anything less than a victory will be a terrible result.

[The Anti-Targ]

At the risk of feeding the trolls, I'm going to reply to this.

The 'choker' tag that NZ has for the World Cup annoys me a lot. Not because I'm a New Zealander and feel fiercely patriotic or anything like that, but because I actually think it's untrue and has become a bit of a myth that other countries, NH in particular, like to wheel out because they don't like the All Blacks or NZ rugby fans (to be fair, I'm a New Zealander and I don't like most NZ rugby fans). It also shows that, despite how well or badly NZ are actually performing at the time, everyone still makes them favourites regardless.

It also annoys me because, when someone says it, that tells me that that person know very little about rugby history and is either too lazy or too stupid to be able to do even the most rudimentary analysis of the six World Cups so far. I expect that on the Guardian boards, where the majority of posters are idiots, but I expect better on this board.

So, at a basic level, here is a review of NZ's performance at the past six World Cups:

1987: Questions over how good they were going into the tournament, but at the WC were unquestionably the best side and won it relatively easily

1991: Probably the third, or at best, second best side going into the tournament (behind Australia). Ageing, injury-struck and complacent side, strange selection decisions, a couple of years of disharmony within the side leading into it. Lost the semi-final to Australia, who had beaten NZ twice in their three most recent meetings prior to the tournament. Came third after scraping through in an awful 3/4 play-off game against Scotland

1995: Without doubt the best side going into the tournament, playing a style of game that changed rugby and set the template for some of the attitudes and practices still being used today. Entire side bar Zinzan Brooke and Frank Bunce were struck down by food poisoning the day before the final. Plus, SA was a country trying to reinvent itself and had Morgan Freeman Nelson Mandela on their side

1999: a truly awful NZ side. No tight five, arguably* the best fullback in the world playing everywhere except fullback, a flyhalf who was a drunk, a completely mis-used Jonah Lomu, and in Taine Randell a captain who was so lazy that even his own Otago teammate Josh Kronfeld publicly questioned how the guy could effectively captain the side. How anyone thought we were favourites was beyond me at the time. When France came back at us in that semi-final, it exposed the softness, the lack of street smarts, of tight forward technique, of tactical nous and of the appalling 'brand' culture that had built up around the side. The 'choking' tag comes from that semi-final, but anybody watching the All Blacks for the two years going into that tournament should not have been surprised by what happened that day. On a positive note, at least it meant John Hart was sacked

2003: 2nd best side there, behind England, who were streets ahead of any other side at the tournament (the fact that WC final went to extra-time shows just how stupid the referee was when it came to scrums). Apart from Mealamu and Jack, we had no tight five, and in players like Ali Williams and So'ioalo, we had naive forwards who thought test rugby was about tap kicks, fancy long balls and show-boating. That said, if it hadn't been for some appalling refereeing, Umaga's knee, Nonu's lack of defensive understanding, and Marshall breaking his ribs, we could have won that semi-final, and I think England might have blinked (but I wouldn't bet on it) if it had been NZ not Aussie in the final. On the plus side, at least it ended Leon MacDonald's career.

2007: We choked. Probably one of the most text-book examples of choking you could ever see. So much so, that Jon Smit used NZ's paralysis in the face of adversity to snap his side out of their freeze when SA were in the shit against Fiji the next day. You can blame poor management of the side and the misfortune of having a ridiculously easy pool, but yeah, in 2007 we totally choked.

So, out of six world cups, one definite choke.

You must be channeling my dearly departed father with that analysis. He always saw the frailties of those All Black sides in every win the ABs had leading up to those tournaments. And it really was '95 and '07 that were the bitterest disappointments because those were the years that Dad was actually confident in a victory. A shame he didn't live to see a second RWC win. I just hope he's doing an Obi Wan now from beyond the veil and giving some Jedi powers to the lads. Sad to say I was one who wanted to see John Hart as coach. What a disaster he turned out to be, almost as bad as Mitchell.

[Deedles]

So, less than a week away, what do the pundits on the board say?

My prediction for the first match has NZ scoring around 3.30 and winning by a huge margin (what can I say, I'm an optimist).

Irelands preseason has been appalling. I get that pre-season is to warm up, run moves and get combinations working together STill appalling.

Oz look good and probably have my money in the bookies, as I think they could run NZ very close.

France, can't see it.

SA. Naw, they had their time, this won't be their year.

England. Now, they are a dark horse.

[Sir Thursday]

I don't buy the idea that the performance of teams years in the past has any effect on the performance of teams right now. So I really can't look past NZ right now, especially with home advantage. Australia may have won in Australia, but that's not where the matches are going to be played.

Australia probably clear second favourites with South Africa and England on the tier below.

ST

[ljkeane]

So, less than a week away, what do the pundits on the board say?

My prediction for the first match has NZ scoring around 3.30 and winning by a huge margin (what can I say, I'm an optimist).

I'm actually cautiously optimistic that the first match might be a good game. I was disappointed with Tonga in the Churchill Cup but they should be fired up for this game and they have Tonga'uiha, who's probably the best tight five forward in world rugby imo at the moment, coming back into the team. If he can really get into the All Black forwards it might make it interesting although obviously I'd be very surprised if Tonga actually came away with a result.

As for the tournament as a whole I'll go with the very unadventurous picks of New Zealand as favourites with Australia not far behind. I think South Africa, England, France and maybe Ireland if they get their act together are all capable of winning a one off match against one of the two favourites if they hit top form but I can't see them beating both to win the whole thing. As far as real outsiders I'm hopeful that Samoa can have a strong World Cup after some very impressive recent performances.

[Adept Havelock]

OK, my predictions

Pool A;

1st NZ

2nd France

The easiest group to predict, this is a 95% chance to happen. I can't see the all blacks losing to the French, they'll be motivated to ensure they avoid a difficult 2nd round match.

Pool B;

1st England

2nd Scotland

I think England will top the group easily, its a 50/50 between Argentina and Scotland, I think Ritchie Gray will prove to be the difference between the teams (hes the best Scottish player I've seen, ever).

Pool C;

1st Australia

2nd Italy

Australia will top this group its a 99% certainty, I think Italy will beat Ireland, even though it will be a poor world cup end for O'Driscoll, Irelands greatest ever player.

Pool D

1st SA

2nd Fiji

The toughest group; SA, Wales, Fiji, Samoa, Namibia. There are no easy games even Namibia are a physical challenge. I think SA will be one of the two but they could easily end up second rather than first. It's a toss up between Wales, Samoa and Fiji for the second spot in the knockout phase. Wales have the best squad but I can't see them scoring enough tries to progress. My money is on Samoa.

[Padraig]

Pool C;

1st Australia

2nd Italy

Australia will top this group its a 99% certainty, I think Italy will beat Ireland, even though it will be a poor world cup end for O'Driscoll, Irelands greatest ever player.

Now that's pessimism. Everything points to us coming second and losing in the QFs. Its a pity, as we have good players but we haven't found a way to convert that into a performance. Except the odd game against England.

Now we could freeze against Italy but we should be experienced enough to avoid that. Even if we end up making it difficult for ourselves.