NationStates Jolt Archive

It's the Rugby World Cup starting tomorrow. Like many, we're all hoping we can remind New Zealand of crushing defeat for another 4 years and to help that along...

EDIT: Totally forgot Ireland, I tried to hit stop and delete Myrth and replace with: Ireland - who might do but drunkenly, but too late too late so if any Mod is passing by and sees this - please change if you feel like it.

10 Reasons why NZ won't win the World Cup below...

But who will?

1 History

As every schoolboy knows, New Zealand have a lot of ghosts to exorcise. OK, they won the Webb Ellis Cup in 1987 but have found assorted ways to self-destruct ever since. They lost to Australia in the semi-finals in 1991 and 2003, fell foul of South Africa in the 1995 final and were blown away by France in the 1999 semi-finals. As the Wallaby scrum-half George Gregan gleefully reminded the 2003 side in Sydney: "Four more years, boys."

2 Hosts with the most

The All Blacks have never won the tournament on foreign soil since winning the first World Cup at home in 1987. In total the hosts have reached the final in four of the five tournaments, the exception being Wales in 1999, and won it twice.

3 Peak practice

New Zealand may have won the Tri Nations but the current side are looking less invincible than they once did. "I think New Zealand peaked 18 months ago when they played the British Lions," argues the former Wallaby hooker Phil Kearns. "They have not played as well since then and I think they are starting to worry."

4 Pressure back home

As ever, the expectation from Auckland to Invercargill is suffocating. Even former All Blacks who offer well-intentioned pre-tournament opinions unwittingly turn the screw. "I think the team is well prepared, it's a quality team, it's well coached and well led, so they have every chance," muses the 1987 skipper David Kirk. "But you have to do it on the day, so there are no guarantees." No pressure, lads.

5 Midfield uncertainty

Who will play No13 in the big matches? Answers on a postcard to Graham Henry. Isaia Toeava is a talent but is still relatively raw, Conrad Smith has only just returned from long-term injury. In the last World Cup Tana Umaga's fitness problems cast a long shadow and Australia took full advantage in the semi-final in Sydney. Could it happen again?

6 Distractions

In a perfect world the All Black management would have had their players' rapt attention for the last nine months. Instead a large number of high-profile squad members have been poring over European guide books in preparation for big-money moves to English or French clubs. Carl Hayman, Luke McAllister, Chris Jack, Anton Oliver, Byron Kelleher...the list of Kiwis heading off-shore goes on.

7 Over-reliance on key players

If either Richie McCaw or Dan Carter breaks a leg, an entire nation will panic. Hayman is another key figure - no one wins a World Cup without a dominant scrum - but McCaw is the real talisman. His speed and breakdown strength are fundamental to the All Blacks' game plan but he is prone to concussion and will inevitably be the target of some heavy treatment.

8 South Africa

It has taken time but the rest of the world's elite, led by South Africa, have caught up with New Zealand's physicality. The All Blacks cannot rely on battering the Springboks into submission and, indeed, might find themselves on the receiving end from Schalk Burger, Danie Rossouw, Bakkies Botha and co. If the All Blacks start losing the collisions they will be as mortal as anyone. "They expected to go out there and smash everyone in the TriNations and I think they are asking themselves questions (like) 'My God, what's going on?'" says Kearns. "They've got a really tough draw and New Zealand won't win through to the semi-finals."

9 Easy pool matches

It is possible that Scotland and Italy will not field their strongest sides against the Kiwis in the pool stages while Romania and Portugal will be easy beats. When the heat comes on in the knockout stages, New Zealand may require time to adjust whereas others will be more battle-hardened.

10 French waitresses

It was allegedly food poisoning, the result of alledirty work by a mysterious Johannesburg waitress called Suzie, which helped to cook New Zealand's goose in 1995. Never mind Schalk and Imanol, their toughest opponents could be Françoise and Amélie

I haven't got a clue, but I'll be watching anyway. The beer is already cooled, there's no way back.

We all know Ireland are going to win it*anyway, we don't need to be on your lousy poll :p
*Warning: many not be accurate prediction

We all know Ireland are going to win it*anyway, we don't need to be on your lousy poll :p
*Warning: many not be accurate prediction

And if worst comes to worst we can always be the first to beat the champions afterwards

France will win.

It's the Rugby World Cup starting tomorrow. Like many, we're all hoping we can remind New Zealand of crushing defeat for another 4 years and to help that along...
10 Reasons why NZ won't win the World Cup below...
1 History

As every schoolboy knows, New Zealand have a lot of ghosts to exorcise. OK, they won the Webb Ellis Cup in 1987 but have found assorted ways to self-destruct ever since. They lost to Australia in the semi-finals in 1991 and 2003, fell foul of South Africa in the 1995 final and were blown away by France in the 1999 semi-finals. As the Wallaby scrum-half George Gregan gleefully reminded the 2003 side in Sydney: "Four more years, boys."
That's unfair. They weren't favourites in 1991. There were old, unfit and too heavy for the new faster game. It was apparent before they even turned up for the cup.
In 1995 they would have won easily, 'cept for the food poisoning (regardless of whether it was foul play or not, fact is it decimated the ABs yet it still took SA 120 minutes to beat them).
1999, they went to sleep against France which cost them dearly.
2003 is the only time anyone can honestly say they were outplayed by a smarter opponent.
So for all the 'choker' tag flung around it really doesn't measure up when looked at.
3 Peak practice
New Zealand may have won the Tri Nations but the current side are looking less invincible than they once did. "I think New Zealand peaked 18 months ago when they played the British Lions," argues the former Wallaby hooker Phil Kearns. "They have not played as well since then and I think they are starting to worry."
Fact is, last 3 years, the ABs have lost to just 2 teams (SA, and Oz) all times on their turf. SA don't travel well - check their recent stats out when they play away from home.
As for over-peaking, they've had 4 weeks of rest leading up to the cup.

4 Pressure back home
As ever, the expectation from Auckland to Invercargill is suffocating. Even former All Blacks who offer well-intentioned pre-tournament opinions unwittingly turn the screw. "I think the team is well prepared, it's a quality team, it's well coached and well led, so they have every chance," muses the 1987 skipper David Kirk. "But you have to do it on the day, so there are no guarantees." No pressure, lads.
Where do you get that from? I was there a month ago and didn't see much (in fact anything) about the All Blacks. There's expectation, sure, but not overwhelming.
Don't think that every other team capable of taking the cup (of which there's only 5 realistically) isn't also suffering from pressure back home?

6 Distractions
In a perfect world the All Black management would have had their players' rapt attention for the last nine months. Instead a large number of high-profile squad members have been poring over European guide books in preparation for big-money moves to English or French clubs. Carl Hayman, Luke McAllister, Chris Jack, Anton Oliver, Byron Kelleher...the list of Kiwis heading off-shore goes on.
If money concerns are what's bothering them, don't you think that they'd know that winning the World Cup would add another couple of zeros to their salaries?

7 Over-reliance on key players
If either Richie McCaw or Dan Carter breaks a leg, an entire nation will panic. Hayman is another key figure - no one wins a World Cup without a dominant scrum - but McCaw is the real talisman. His speed and breakdown strength are fundamental to the All Blacks' game plan but he is prone to concussion and will inevitably be the target of some heavy treatment.
Aside from Carter and McCaw they also over-rely on Chris Jack, Bryon Kelleher, Anton Oliver, Ma'a Nonu, Jerry Collins, Leon MacDonald, Josevata Rokocoko, Malili Muliaina, Sitiveni Sivivatu...
Yep, target one of those guys and the rest of the ABs just don't have the talent to cover.
Unlike England who don't rely - to the point of structuring their whole gameplan around - on anyone, especially not anyone who's prone to injury and barely played the last 3 years because of it.

8 South Africa
It has taken time but the rest of the world's elite, led by South Africa, have caught up with New Zealand's physicality. The All Blacks cannot rely on battering the Springboks into submission and, indeed, might find themselves on the receiving end from Schalk Burger, Danie Rossouw, Bakkies Botha and co. If the All Blacks start losing the collisions they will be as mortal as anyone. "They expected to go out there and smash everyone in the TriNations and I think they are asking themselves questions (like) 'My God, what's going on?'" says Kearns. "They've got a really tough draw and New Zealand won't win through to the semi-finals."
SA don't play well away from home. Simple as that.

9 Easy pool matches
It is possible that Scotland and Italy will not field their strongest sides against the Kiwis in the pool stages while Romania and Portugal will be easy beats. When the heat comes on in the knockout stages, New Zealand may require time to adjust whereas others will be more battle-hardened.
battle-hardened or perhaps war-weary and suffering from injuries...

10 French waitresses
It was allegedly food poisoning, the result of dirty work by a mysterious Johannesburg waitress called Suzie, which helped to cook New Zealand's goose in 1995. Never mind Schalk and Imanol, their toughest opponents could be Françoise and Amélie
Because severe food poisoning is not something that could ever reduce one's capability to play intensive test rugby, is it?


Still, from 1/4 finals onwards every game's do-or-die. The ABs have shown that they can be beaten. Opposing team has a good day, ABs have an off-day and they're gone.
Then again, their off-days have been pretty few and far between the last 3 years - losing just 1 game a year.

*snip*

Eeh hee hee :) - seriously, we need to catch one game in HK - not tomorrow because it's just way too late but one game for sure.

Every team in every cup of every sport has its excuse for not winning - NZ has had one too many, if not two - three if you count '95 to which the debate is open.

I can't see England getting past the quarters so I think it's down to 4.

New Zealand - really should win but then that's been the same for the last 3 cups
France - prefer being underdogs I think - still, they managed it in football at home
South Africa - yeah, chokers, but damn they're physical
Australia - thing is, they never choke, they really don't and they just raise their game when it matters - even in the '03 final, after a massive game against NZ, they still took it to England and played an amazing game.

So, all in all, I'd put my money on NZ but I'd hedge on Australia as ever though I hope it's France.

EDIT: ...and seriously, apologies to all Ireland for the omission :(

EDIT EDIT: Aside from Carter and McCaw they also over-rely on Chris Jack, Bryon Kelleher, Anton Oliver, Ma'a Nonu, Jerry Collins, Leon MacDonald, Josevata Rokocoko, Malili Muliaina, Sitiveni Sivivatu...
Yep, target one of those guys and the rest of the ABs just don't have the talent to cover.
Unlike England who don't rely - to the point of structuring their whole gameplan around - on anyone, especially not anyone who's prone to injury and barely played the last 3 years because of it.

For those who don't follow rugby, more rubbish is contained in this quote than an entire landfill in the Grand Duchy of Rubbish, a nation whose sole purpose is to specialise in producing rubbish :)

Don't think that every other team capable of taking the cup (of which there's only 5 realistically) isn't also suffering from pressure back home?

And who are they?

NZ, Australia, South Africa, France, and...?

And who are they?

NZ, Australia, South Africa, France, and...?

Ireland :)

Ireland :)

Don't say that! You'll curse us and we'll get beaten by Georgia and Namibia (those two Rugby powerhouses) and not even get out of the group stages.

Seriously, though, I think the group will be:

France
Ireland (although I wouldn't be surprised if they came first)
Argentina
God knows between Georgia and Namibia.

Argentina got unlucky with a difficult group. Up against the two best northern hemisphere sides...

New Zealand will kick everyone's asses. I just hope England don't get humiliated in the semis (if we get there)...even that assumes we win our pool then beat...Wales, probably.

France losing their opening pool game has now pretty much screwed the All Blacks.
If everything else goes the way ppl are expecting the All Blacks would face:
France (irb ranking: 3) in the quarters
Australia (irb ranking: 2) in the semis
South Africa (irb ranking: 4) in the finals.

South Africa on the other hand would face:
Wales (possibly Fiji) (irb ranking: 8 and 12, respectively)
Argentina (irb ranking: 6)
and then the All Blacks (irb ranking: 1)

A much, much easier route. Hell, SA could rest some of their top players right up until the final, whereas the ABs will have to play their strongest team three games in a row.
It's a tall order to expect any team, even the All Blacks, to beat three of the best sides in the world one after the other.

esp since their track record against Oz in WC semi-finals ain't too hot.

Looks like another 4 year wait...:(


What the All Blacks should do is lose a pool game, then they'd face:
Argentina
South Africa
Australia or France

Which, while almost as tough, has the added attraction of ensuring the other finalist has had a tough semi leading into the final (it'd be Oz vs France in that semi).
This is something NZ really lacks - overall tactics. The expectation is for them to win every single game, so they play outstanding rugby throughout, giving other teams a chance to watch and prepare.
However, the aim is to win the final and, as such, if losing a pool game means not only an easier q/f but also a tougher s/f for the opposition then that's exactly what they should do.

*snip*

Yeah, it's simply the physicality that, and granted I think NZ are better than Australia - the game will be so physical that to let them then go against the most physical team of all, SA, is a tough call.

I'm coming round to rooting for NZ now that France have lost because I feel for underdogs and I think NZ have everything against them yet, in all honesty, they're the best team.

The only team, now, that can beat NZ are South Africa. Such is the physicality, and grit, of their pack that they may be able to constrict the All Blacks and nab the odd try from the pace of Habana. I would have suggested France could have beaten them, but Laporte appears to have fashioned them into something alltogther too predictable, reliable and mundane to have any chance of beating NZ. Skrela instead of Michelak? Even Woodward would not have been quite so conservative.

The U.S. is in this world cup you speak of??? If it is then we will win. If not, then Canada. Hail the great North American empire.

well, awe-inspiring wins to the All Blacks and the Wallabies and the usual list of excuses from a very uninspired and dismal England.
Then again, pretty much the same thing happened last WC, so I'm not getting my hopes up just yet.

The U.S. is in this world cup you speak of??? If it is then we will win. If not, then Canada. Hail the great North American empire.

The defending Olympic champions in Rugby are in the Rugby World Cup; however, they were defeated by England. Canada is also in the Rugby World Cup, they are in Pool B with the likes of Japan and Fiji.

Also, I personally think that the All Blacks could pull this one off, for one thing, Graham Henry has a forty year career on the line here - if he doesn't get the cup, then it will be a very big stain on his career. Mitchell, Hart and others did not have so much at stake.

The defending Olympic champions in Rugby are in the Rugby World Cup; however, they were defeated by England. Canada is also in the Rugby World Cup, they are in Pool B with the likes of Japan and Fiji.

Also, I personally think that the All Blacks could pull this one off, for one thing, Graham Henry has a forty year career on the line here - if he doesn't get the cup, then it will be a very big stain on his career. Mitchell, Hart and others did not have so much at stake.
Did you see my post on the previous page?
The draw makes it pretty damn tough, if not bordering on the impossible, now for the ABs to win.

Yup - England were dismal and although I think they'll get through their group I doubt they'll make it past the quarters.

Watching Australia/Japan was watching candy being taken from a baby, but NZ were pretty awesome although I think Italy were just awed by the onslaught.

Tough for NZ still but if Ireland beat Argentina by a good margin and France beat Ireland there's some hope at least.

Well done to Argentina! That was a awesome win.

England...current champions...dire. Utterly dire and unless they really turn it all around in the next few games are done for.

I'm surprised no one has voted for South Africa - who I feel are the most likely due to the fact that if NZ do beat Australia, they likely face South Africa in the finals and, as DH has pointed out, NZ are likely to be shattered whereas South Africa have a relatively easy ride.

South Africa are enormously physical and extremely good - in equal circumstances I'd still put NZ ahead, but I'm not sure they'll be equal circumstances.

Still, South Africa do have a history of bottling it, in which case, no one beats NZ.

England v South Africa will show if South africa can beat England well enough to take on the all blacks and win, im still hoping for an England victory but after a miserable perfomance against the USA who we should of whacked I think its time to stop saying we are world champs

Hahahah Wales.


Canada are 8 points up and a try away from a bonus point.

meh nevermind, the Welsh subs came on and saved them.

Did you see my post on the previous page?
The draw makes it pretty damn tough, if not bordering on the impossible, now for the ABs to win.

I did, however, although the draw is tough, it is still possible. First of all, your post suggested a Springboks/Pumas semi-final. The Pumas have a brutal front line and can provide the Springboks with a good number of injuries - the only reason why the Pumas do not win more is because of their poor back line. On the other hand, the All Blacks have less brutal opponents in that event. Also, bear in mind that with three tough teams, it is easier to keep on form, and while the French are highly ranked, do not forget that the ABs gave them an absolute pounding this year.

Of course everything is resting on Ireland vs France and Ireland vs Argentina. If France give the Irish a good pounding (which seems possible, given the pathetic win that the Irish had against Namibia)

Also, South Africa have done pathetically away from home in recent years, the chances of them beating the All Blacks are quite slim unless the ABs make a stuff up (highly likely)

I think its time to stop saying we are world champs

You're not any more, the title is relinquished as soon as the next tournament starts.

Come on (Insert name of Engalnd's opponents here) :D

You're not any more, the title is relinquished as soon as the next tournament starts.

Come on South Africa, Samoa, the United States and Tonga :D

There, I have modified your quote; I do hope that Samoa beat the English, though they will get demolished by Australia in the Quarter Finals.

You're not any more, the title is relinquished as soon as the next tournament starts.
I thought they relinquish it when the final whistle blows. Or until they lose in the quarter-finals.
Whichever comes first.

Interesting developments afoot, regarding injuries (Olly Barkley [Eng], Matt Giteau [Oz]) and possible suspensions (Schalk Burger [SA], Phil Vickery [Eng]).

For NZ's sake, I hope this trend of injuries and suspensions continue with these 3 teams.
Worringly for NZ, their forwards coach, Steve Hansen, has returned to NZ because his mum's ill, and can't say when he'll be back. Their forwards are the weaker aspect of their game.

I was wondering when what happens when two of the teams with a pre-match ritual chant/dance (New Zealand, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji) come face to face. This does (http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=ctcpixgib6E). Impressive. I'll have to be sure to watch Samoa vs. Tonga in four days.

I was wondering when what happens when two of the teams with a pre-match ritual chant/dance (New Zealand, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji) come face to face. This does (http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=ctcpixgib6E). Impressive. I'll have to be sure to watch Samoa vs. Tonga in four days.

Did anyone see the Fiji-Japan game? It's the best game of the tournament so far, amazing - it was 25-24 to Fiji with about 15 minutes to go before Fiji scored a try/conversion plus a penalty but Japan came back with a pushover try with about 5 minutes to go (extraordinarily non-Japanese looking guy called Luke Thompson?), making it 35-31

From there, Japan were just incredible with through the legs passes and just flinging it around the pitch from left to right and running Fiji ragged. I really thought they'd break through but alas they just couldn't find a way.

Such a good game.

I was wondering when what happens when two of the teams with a pre-match ritual chant/dance (New Zealand, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji) come face to face. This does (http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=ctcpixgib6E). Impressive. I'll have to be sure to watch Samoa vs. Tonga in four days.
This one (http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=rJEidTOI5iA) gives you a better idea of what might happen (though it is Fiji and Samoa):

Barry - sent you a pm about a meet up if you're interested.

I was wondering when what happens when two of the teams with a pre-match ritual chant/dance (New Zealand, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji) come face to face. This does (http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=ctcpixgib6E). Impressive. I'll have to be sure to watch Samoa vs. Tonga in four days.

I'm disappointed; they did it one after the other. :(

I also caught the end of Fiji v. Canada, which seems to have been a good game.

Guess who paid an obscene amount of money for the pleasure of watching us lose to SA? Muggins here.:(

The only area of the whole match in which we competed was in the crowd...

At least I know what it's like to be scottish now.

Guess who paid an obscene amount of money for the pleasure of watching us lose to SA? Muggins here.:(


Ouch. You have my sympathies.

How long did you stay in Paris?

At least I know what it's like to be scottish now.

Scotland are chucking out their B team to face what will probably be a near full strength all black team. I'm wondering what the lowest score they'll manage to put up in the pool play will be.

Hahahahahahahahaha

36 Nil and frankly England were fortunate to get Nil :D

Bring on the Quarter finals, we stand a better chance of putting one over SA or at worst at least scoring some points

You can stick your effin chariot up your arse :D:D

Hahahahahahahahaha

36 Nil and frankly England were fortunate to get Nil :D

Bring on the Quarter finals, we stand a better chance of putting one over SA or at worst at least scoring some points

You can stick your effin chariot up your arse :D:D


Celts > Saxons :D

Hahahahahahahahaha

36 Nil and frankly England were fortunate to get Nil :D

Bring on the Quarter finals, we stand a better chance of putting one over SA or at worst at least scoring some points

You can stick your effin chariot up your arse :D:D

As an Englishman of part-Welsh descent, I've always found the Welsh anti-English comments remarkably silly and childish. It's as if a large number of Welsh people were trying hard to portray the Welsh nation as immature. :rolleyes:

The Tonga vs England game will be very interesting.
Let's hope England shape up or they'll be shipping out.

As an Englishman of part-Welsh descent, I've always found the Welsh anti-English comments remarkably silly and childish. It's as if a large number of Welsh people were trying hard to portray the Welsh nation as immature. :rolleyes:

No, sorry it's still funny.
What odds on England not making it beyond the Pool stages?

Ouch. You have my sympathies.

How long did you stay in Paris?

I didn't, unfortunately. I do like Paris.

My grandparents are hiring a large house 2 hours(ish) north(ish) from Paris near Hesdin, so I stayed there and we all drove up.

I must confess I found the banlieus staggeringly deprived; worse than any area of inner city London.

No, sorry it's still funny.
What odds on England not making it beyond the Pool stages?

Irrelevant. We've known we won't win the damn thing since about 2005, and should have told Dallaglio, Robinson, Wilkinson and company goodbye and concentrated on building a side for 2011.

You lot, however, actually thought you could win it. :D

Irrelevant. We've known we won't win the damn thing since about 2005, and should have told Dallaglio, Robinson, Wilkinson and company goodbye and concentrated on building a side for 2011.

So why have you got such a pish awful squad?
Dallaglio well past his best, Likewise Lewsey, Catt, Kay, Vickery, Regan, I would include Perry but that implies he ever had a "best" to be past, Gomersall, Noon, Sackey, Easter, Worsley, Stevens, Borthwick all lucky to be there.

About the only players you've got I'd consider are Shaw, Rees (got to be some welsh in there with a name like that :p ) Richards, Moody, Sheridan and Barkley if he can stay uninjured. Oh yes, and Robinson.

Wilkinson hasn't done much to justify his seat on the plane yet either.

You lot, however, actually thought you could win it. :D

Eternal optimism is the gods gift to Celts:D:D

So why have you got such a pish awful squad?
Wilkinson hasn't done much to justify his seat on the plane yet either.

I agree regarding Wilkinson; he was perfectly suited to the automaton style of rugby Woodward implemented, whereas, in a more progressive, fluid style, he finds himself outpaced and outthought by the likes of Barkley, Flood, Geraghty and Tait.

Our squad, for that matter, isn't actually that bad. Had Ashton had Ellis available, as opposed to either Richards or Perry, and had he selected the young players who actually enervated England in the latter half of the six nations; Tait, Flood, Geraghty, Lund and company, we might at least have competed with South Africa.

We all know New Zealand is going to win, yet I see no option on the poll for "No-one can defeat the invincible rugby powerhouse which is New Zealand!"

We all know New Zealand is going to win, yet I see no option on the poll for "No-one can defeat the invincible rugby powerhouse which is New Zealand!"

If South Africa can get past the Powerhouse of Wales in Marseille I think they may win the whole thing, the ABs have to beat France to get to the final who seem to be a vastly improved team over the one that started the whole thing off.

if Portugal didn't beat them no one will....:upyours:

if Portugal didn't beat them no one will....:upyours:

However, the fact that the All Blacks did not beat the 145-17 record that they have is concerning me.

What seems to be interesting me now is the possibility that Argentina may make it into the Semi-Finals. If Argentina beat the Irish, then they have a Quarter Final against either Scotland or Italy. Neither team is doing well at the moment, so the Argentines could win. It would be rather funny if it became an all Southern Hemisphere final.

Also, I do believe that the All Blacks will be putting extra effort into winning. They have plenty of scores to settle.

I've just watched the end of South Africa v. Tonga. The Tongans' final push in the last two minutes was great to watch. I felt bad for them when that last try in the final seconds just failed to happen.

Brilliant effort! Well done, Tonga... but please don't play quite so well against England. ;)

England 44-22 Samoa.

The Tonga v. England match should be interesting. I doubt it will be an easy win for England.

England 44-22 Samoa.

The Tonga v. England match should be interesting. I doubt it will be an easy win for England.
Hard to say. After the way Samoa pushed them tonight for 70 minutes and England will have a chance to see how Tonga played against SA, I think they've got a better idea of how to play PI teams. They'll put on their best XV and really go for it, probably targeting Tonga's back 3 with lots of kicks.
Tonga, as much as I like them, just don't have the depth and experience to do 3 tough games in a row. While I hope they give England a good run, I can't help but feel they've played their best already and England will run away with the game. Mostly through the boot of Wilko of course.
They can't win any other way.

I've just watched the end of South Africa v. Tonga. The Tongans' final push in the last two minutes was great to watch. I felt bad for them when that last try in the final seconds just failed to happen.

Brilliant effort! Well done, Tonga... but please don't play quite so well against England. ;)

Yeah. Bloody ref should have allowed that last line out, these little things can change an entire tournament's path!

Oh well. Let's hope Scotland can put up as much of a shocker as Tonga have, wot wot!

However, the fact that the All Blacks did not beat the 145-17 record that they have is concerning me.

What seems to be interesting me now is the possibility that Argentina may make it into the Semi-Finals. If Argentina beat the Irish, then they have a Quarter Final against either Scotland or Italy. Neither team is doing well at the moment, so the Argentines could win. It would be rather funny if it became an all Southern Hemisphere final.
It's going to be an all SH final anyway, most prob SA-ABs.

As for that 145-17 record, I don't think any team will beat that. For one thing 145 points is like scoring a converted try every 3-4 minutes for the entire game. Considering the time taken to kick for goal and get the ball back to the 1/2 way line, along with scrums, line-outs, penalty kicks, Japan scoring points etc., it's really pushing it to score that many points. You're realistically looking at a converted try every ~2 minutes after all the other stuff is taken away.

And, of course, Look at how the minnows are playing this time round - they've improved markedly over the last two WCs which needs to be taken into consideration. There's no longer two teams and 3 easy beats in each pool anymore. Most pools this WC have 2 teams, 2 close-but-not-quite teams and 1 easy beat.

Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, even Canada and Georgia have pushed the top sides if not all the way then at least for a good 50-60min of the game. Professionalism, experience and full-time training is what counts in the last 10-20 minutes, which is why teams like England can go from 26-22 against Samoa at 70min to 44-22 at 80 (and Wales go from 22-17 at 60 minutes to 42-17 at the whistle).
Another 8 years (maybe even just 4) and we'll see these teams in a position to seriously compete with some of the big guys (eg Wales, Scotland, Ireland).

Yeah. Bloody ref should have allowed that last line out, these little things can change an entire tournament's path!

Oh well. Let's hope Scotland can put up as much of a shocker as Tonga have, wot wot!
ahh...me no think so. Neither do the Scots as they're playing their 2nd XV for the ABs game.
Which, while defeatist, is good strategy.
They were never going to win, have 3 games in 11 days (iirc) and need to beat Italy (their next game) in order to get into the QFs. Italy have over a week off to rest, recuperate and repair but Scotland only has 5 days. Not really enough if you've just been thumped by the ABs.

ahh...me no think so. Neither do the Scots as they're playing their 2nd XV for the ABs game.
Which, while defeatist, is good strategy.
They were never going to win, have 3 games in 11 days (iirc) and need to beat Italy (their next game) in order to get into the QFs. Italy have over a week off to rest, recuperate and repair but Scotland only has 5 days. Not really enough if you've just been thumped by the ABs.


Leave me and my delusions alone!


:(

Ack! Should Scotland get through, I just learned that they'd be playing France or Argentina!

Major bummer!

Ack! Should Scotland get through, I just learned that they'd be playing France or Argentina!

Major bummer!
Well, I think Scotland would view it as a major achievement to get into the QFs and weren't expecting to do any better than that.
Also, a QF place means automatic selection for the 2011 WC, which was prob Scotland's aim all along.

Oh well. Let's hope Scotland can put up as much of a shocker as Tonga have, wot wot!

40 zip; yawn.

England and France placing 2nd in their groups really screws this whole tournament up.

South Africa - who I thought were quite poor in the Tonga game - have such an easy ride to the finals.

I can't see England beating Australia, given they get through Tonga in the first place, so I think we can pretty much guarantee Australia in the semis.

NZ-France is interesting - will France pull one of those inspired games out of the hat?

I'm just depressed by the easy ride for South Africa though. The worst is that I can't really support any team against them. I just can't accept Wales in the SFs period and for either Argentina, Scotland or, on the outside, Ireland to beat them in the semis would mean a crap final game whether against NZ or Australia.

It's quite depressing.

England and France placing 2nd in their groups really screws this whole tournament up.

South Africa - who I thought were quite poor in the Tonga game - have such an easy ride to the finals.

I can't see England beating Australia, given they get through Tonga in the first place, so I think we can pretty much guarantee Australia in the semis.

NZ-France is interesting - will France pull one of those inspired games out of the hat?

I'm just depressed by the easy ride for South Africa though. The worst is that I can't really support any team against them. I just can't accept Wales in the SFs period and for either Argentina, Scotland or, on the outside, Ireland to beat them in the semis would mean a crap final game whether against NZ or Australia.

It's quite depressing.
I share the same feelings.
I find it interesting how the entire World's media have turned on the All Blacks after the Scotland game. True, they made a few handling errors but the thing is they didn't have to get out of 3rd gear the entire game, they didn't concede a point and, other than maybe Australia or Argentina, they've not had a bad game thus far.
The same cannot be said of the other top teams (England, SA, France, Ireland).
Seems to me like the media is just dying for the ABs to screw up so they can gloat, "I told you so!"
I hope the ABs rise above and don't get too stressed by all this negativity.

France not coming top has so screwed up this tornament - and not just for NZ.
We're got (barring Ireland thumping Argentina) a situation now with 1 side of the QFs full of the best teams and the other side full of the also-rans + SA. Which means the best rugby might well be seen in the QFs and SFs, not the final.

What I hope doesn't happen is SA cruising into the final and beating an exhausted NZ. The way they gloated after '95 was bad enough, but this time!
uhh..I can't bear to imagine it.

France are starting to peak at the right time, which is good for them, but not for NZ.

The way Argentina is playing I'm starting to think they'll give SA a damn good run. Especially after SA's lousy game against Tonga.
I'd love to see Argentina into the final - and not just cause I don't like SA. Argentina's a good team with plenty of flair. Always good watching them. Strong defence as well - thus far in this WC, no-one's scored a try against them.

It's going to be an all SH final anyway, most prob SA-ABs.

I should have said an all Southern Hemisphere semi-finals

Also, this place is going mad over the Tonga vs England match. At lunchtime, Queen Street (main street in Auckland) was full of cars hooting and carrying Tongan flags.

It would be really funny if Tonga beat England; even though they end up facing Australia, they may just give the Aussies enough injuries to make our path that little bit easier.

Also, it would be really interesting to see an Argentine/All Blacks final.

All blacks will go all the way, you just cant beat Dan the man

I'm thinking the ABs should make it as well - one thing I asked DH was whether this tournament was much longer than previous - all the games seem set up for TV and are held nearly exclusively over the weekends.

Was this always the case?

The effect is that the ABs get a better rest between their likely match against France and then Australia before the finals.

Although Argentina-ABs would be interesting in one sense, I just think it would make for a poor game - I'd rather see ABs thrash SA than Argentina to be honest.

I'm still thinking Australia have a good chance of beating the ABs though.

I'm thinking the ABs should make it as well - one thing I asked DH was whether this tournament was much longer than previous - all the games seem set up for TV and are held nearly exclusively over the weekends.

Was this always the case?

The effect is that the ABs get a better rest between their likely match against France and then Australia before the finals.

Although Argentina-ABs would be interesting in one sense, I just think it would make for a poor game - I'd rather see ABs thrash SA than Argentina to be honest.

I'm still thinking Australia have a good chance of beating the ABs though.

Yeah, I wouldn't count this out, particularly if some of the injured players come good. Although we aren't at our top form, we're definitely still right up there, and it'd only take a bad day at the office for the ABs to lose to Australia.

There's also the history... It's almost become tradition that the ABs get booted despite magnificent form. :p

Well, England came out on top as I expected.
Still: Considering England's got a population of a bit over 50 million with 1.4 million rugby players, whereas Tonga's got a total population of 116,000 and 5,500 adult rugby players, I think Tonga should be justifiably proud of how well they did.
It'd be like the England team turning up to play the Gloucestershire first XV.

A lousy kick and a couple of very dubious ref calls against them didn't help them much either.


I do wish the IRB would reduce the points scored for a drop goal from 3 to 2 (or even 1). Drop goals should be there to win a close game at the death (either by breaking a tie or pushing a team to 8 points ahead - thus making it exciting), not just to slowly amass points from 40 metres out cause your team can't score tries or you have someone in your team who just wants to break a 'most points' record.
Get to within 40 metres, drop goal. Get to within 40 metres, drop goal. Now the other team has to score a converted try to outpoint you. And even if you miss the droppie, you get the ball back from the restart and can try again.
*yawn*
It makes for very boring rugby.

one more point slightly off-topic: I think after this WC, Georgia should push hard to be accepted into the 6 nations. They've proved to be at least the equal of Italy, imo. And them getting that sort of exposure and tests would help them develop their rugby immensely.

whoops: yet another thing of great worry to NZ:
New Zealand have been forced into a late change for Saturday's game against Romania after Dan Carter pulled out with a calf muscle strain.
...

Carter's availability for New Zealand's quarter-final in Cardiff will be re-assessed early next week.

http://www.planet-rugby.com/Story/0,18259,3551_2761391,00.html

Considering how poorly he kicked in the last game (4 from 9 iirc), he really needed the game time to practise.

I'm starting to get a tad more concerned.

Phew!

Well at least we made it out of the qualifying stages.

I understand the wish to give drop-kicks 2 points but I'm afraid I can't agree - I'm English and our game depends on it :)

We'll let Georgia in if the Tri-Nations includes the Pacific Islands.

I'm thinking the ABs should make it as well - one thing I asked DH was whether this tournament was much longer than previous - all the games seem set up for TV and are held nearly exclusively over the weekends.

Was this always the case?

The Rugby World Cup has always been just over a month long. However, yes the games are set up for TV - the matches involving the good sides are usually held on weekends (the only game that the ABs did not play on a Saturday morning was the Scotland match). This came under some severe criticism in the last cup from Argentina who had two matches in four days.

The effect is that the ABs get a better rest between their likely match against France and then Australia before the finals.

Same with everyone though. At Quarter and Semi Final stage, the games are mostly held on the weekends.

Although Argentina-ABs would be interesting in one sense, I just think it would make for a poor game - I'd rather see ABs thrash SA than Argentina to be honest.

Although the game would be boring, it would be awfully funny for Argentina to have made it into the RWC finals - it may just be the tonic to spread the Rugby message in South America.

I do wish the IRB would reduce the points scored for a drop goal from 3 to 2 (or even 1). Drop goals should be there to win a close game at the death (either by breaking a tie or pushing a team to 8 points ahead - thus making it exciting), not just to slowly amass points from 40 metres out cause your team can't score tries or you have someone in your team who just wants to break a 'most points' record.
Get to within 40 metres, drop goal. Get to within 40 metres, drop goal. Now the other team has to score a converted try to outpoint you. And even if you miss the droppie, you get the ball back from the restart and can try again.
*yawn*
It makes for very boring rugby.

Generally, to get a drop goal is pretty difficult - it is all about being at the right place at the right time. Aside from Jonny Wilkinson's mania in 2003, I cannot remember where drop goals have been collected so heavily by a team and/or player.

Also, at least it provides some form of closure - once you get to good sides, tries can be very rarely scored (1995 RWC final involved no tries, for example). Drop goals have their own challenge about it.

We'll let Georgia in if the Tri-Nations includes the Pacific Islands.

Why don't we compromise. I suggest the following:

Ditch the Super 14 and replace it with a Super 16, made up of the following teams

Four teams from South Africa (Cape, Natal, Transvaal, Orange Free)
Four teams from Australia (Qland, NSW, Victoria, WA)
Four teams from New Zealand (Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin)
One team from Fiji
One team from Samoa
One team from Tonga
One team from Argentina

Sound fair?

Generally, to get a drop goal is pretty difficult - it is all about being at the right place at the right time. Aside from Jonny Wilkinson's mania in 2003, I cannot remember where drop goals have been collected so heavily by a team and/or player.
Well there was that SA-Eng game a few years back where Eng scored two tries (!) yet SA won by dint of having scored 21 points through 7 drop goals.
Can't tell me the better side won that day.
Also, at least it provides some form of closure - once you get to good sides, tries can be very rarely scored (1995 RWC final involved no tries, for example). Drop goals have their own challenge about it.
1995 RWC had no tries scored cause the ABs backline were puking their guts out most of the match. And if a number 8 can get a drop goal, they can't be all that difficult! ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERmy73MMy6s (wait until the 2.32min mark and again right at the end)

Why don't we compromise. I suggest the following:

Ditch the Super 14 and replace it with a Super 16, made up of the following teams

Four teams from South Africa (Cape, Natal, Transvaal, Orange Free)
Four teams from Australia (Qland, NSW, Victoria, WA)
Four teams from New Zealand (Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin)
One team from Fiji
One team from Samoa
One team from Tonga
One team from Argentina

Sound fair?
I think another radical option would be SA join the 6 nations, Argentina, and a PI-composite team join NZ and Oz in a Quad-Nations.

Why SA join the 6 nations? Main reason: No time difference for games, so teams won't be playing in (what feels like them) the middle of the night.
right now it's 3pm in Johannesburg, 3pm in Rome, 2pm in London and 1am Sunday (in another hour 3am - daylight savings) in Auckland.
And iirc it's a shorter plane trip to Europe than it is to NZ from SA.
Another reason is if Argentina joined the Tri-nations (which they deserve to), it would make for a dreadful grueling flight schedule for players invovled. Argentina-NZ-Oz-SA. That's far too many air miles and still be expected to play top level rugby.
It would make it better for the players for SA to join the 6 nations.

Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Canada, USA and Japan could hold their own 6 nations with perhaps the winner getting test matches against NZ and Oz.



Tonight's game went as expected (NZ 85: Rom 8). [Lord knows why the Romanians decided to kick a penalty at 72 minutes when the score was 64:5. I can only think the kicker wanted to be able to tell his kids that he scored points against the All Blacks]
It did worry me a bit - the ABs were playing great free-flowing rugby (and as a result, making a few mistakes). My concern is that they have yet to need to set up pieces and grind their way forward. At the moment they can afford to drop the ball and make a few silly mistakes because the opposition just haven't been good enough to put them under pressure and capitalise on it.
It's now a different story and if they continue to play in such a relaxed way, it could well screw them up.

Considering how 'poorly' Carter's been doing (poorly compared to his usual standard), and seeing how Evans played tonight, I bet France are hoping Carter will be fit and well for the QF game.

I think a better solution to drop-goals is that, if missed, the ball is either brought back for a scrum to the defending side at the point kicked or a 25 kick - the choice makes it more a decision for the kicker since there's the chance of lost posession.

For NZ tonight, they ran from everywhere so I think they were just giving the backs a chance to run and not worrying about a driving game.

I can't really see SA joining the 6 nations - I can't see a real problem with the PIs simply joining the Tri-Nations.

The real interest for now is Ireland-France-Argentina.

For some reason, the faint hope for an English victory over Australia is beginning to occur - patriotism's a bitch :)

For NZ tonight, they ran from everywhere so I think they were just giving the backs a chance to run and not worrying about a driving game.
Fair point. Especially as they totally destroyed the Romanian's scrum. It was painful to watch. I was genuinely worried at times NZ would seriously injure one of the Romanian's front row.
That said, I'd still have preferred the ABs to do practise some set pieces and all. Maybe a little condescending to the other team, but winning the WC is what matters, not seeing how many points you can score against Romania.


As for drop goals, maybe a restart at 1/2 way if the dg missed would be a good idea.

The Romanian blind side prop took a beating - it looked painful.

NZ face, likely, Argentina or France next game, both of which will probably go for a running game rather than take on the NZ forwards, better against Argentina than France I guess but that's looking the more likely game.

So, possibly better to give the backs a run and spend the next game driving with the pack as much as possible to prepare for Australia, or (begging) England, as well a win a game.

I sat with some SA's this evening and they were comfortably confident, they think they've got it.

Friday and Saturday's lessons;

-Tongan, Samoan and Fijian rugby players are either the worst cheats, or hulks of meat with no concept of a legal tackle. The Tongan 7 should have been off for his tackle on Moody, and, but for Alain Rolland's lack of spine, would have been.

- watching Wales play, and lose, is great. I truly do enjoy their style of rugby, but, as an England fan, watching them lose to a last gasp Fijian try is a nice experiance.:D

Friday and Saturday's lessons;

-Tongan, Samoan and Fijian rugby players are either the worst cheats, or hulks of meat with no concept of a legal tackle.
third option:
Pacific Islanders tackle hard cause that's what rugby is all about. They can't help it if the NH teams are chock full of nancy boys who can't handle getting a bit of dirt on their clothes.

third option:
Pacific Islanders tackle hard cause that's what rugby is all about. They can't help it if the NH teams are chock full of nancy boys who can't handle getting a bit of dirt on their clothes.

I only heard a bit of Wales v. Fiji on teh world service on the car, but I gather from what people are saying Wales lost despite Fiji going a man down.

I suggest the following:

Ditch the Super 14 and replace it with a Super 16, made up of the following teams

Four teams from South Africa (Cape, Natal, Transvaal, Orange Free)
Four teams from Australia (Qland, NSW, Victoria, WA)
Four teams from New Zealand (Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin)
One team from Fiji
One team from Samoa
One team from Tonga
One team from Argentina

Sound fair?
I was thinking about this last night and think maybe they could set up a two tier league instead of adding yet more teams and games to an already bloated rugby calendar. A Super16 would mean 17 games with the SF and final. That's a 1/3 of the year gone already before they've even started the domestic season. Ppl would soon get rugby fatigue (players and spectators)

My solution(s):
Right now, we have 14 teams in the Super14 (well, duh)
Add two teams from Argentina, and 1 each from Tonga, Samoa, Fiji and Japan

We now have 20 teams.
Split it into two and have two Super 10 leagues - a 1st and 2nd division.
Top two of 2nd division plays the bottom two of the 1st division for relegation/promotion at the end of the year.

Another option if the teams complain (mainly due to funding issues) is having one Super20 but in which over two years, each team would play the other once - so you end up with playing just 9 games in a season (+ the finals), making it an 11 week contest which is short, exciting and - most importantly - gives the players time to rest and recover.

third option:
Pacific Islanders tackle hard cause that's what rugby is all about. They can't help it if the NH teams are chock full of nancy boys who can't handle getting a bit of dirt on their clothes.

High tackles = illegal, and, for that matter, dangerous. The law is damn specific on that, something the islanders seem to overlook.

As for NH teams being full of "nancy boys", I'd rather play a back line of Peel, Wilko, Jauzion, O'Discroll, Patterson, Williams and Thomas than any of the hulking muscle masses the Islanders seem to consider backs.

Damn, Argentina has been beaten Ireland. That means off we go to face the All Blacks...

Well there was that SA-Eng game a few years back where Eng scored two tries (!) yet SA won by dint of having scored 21 points through 7 drop goals.
Can't tell me the better side won that day.


That game was the RWC 1999 qtr final, and England lost 44 - 21, so by considerably more than the 15 points accumulated by Jannie de Beer's drop goals.
South Africa went on to the finish 3rd in the competition, beating New Zealand into 4th place.
The better team undoubtedly won on the day.
linky (http://www.rwc2003.irb.com/EN/RWC+History/Great+Players/Home+page.htm)

By the way,

I don't want to talk about Fiji.:(

That game was the RWC 1999 qtr final, and England lost 44 - 21, so by considerably more than the 15 points accumulated by Jannie de Beer's drop goals.
South Africa went on to the finish 3rd in the competition, beating New Zealand into 4th place.
The better team undoubtedly won on the day.
linky (http://www.rwc2003.irb.com/EN/RWC+History/Great+Players/Home+page.htm)

Just like against Fiji eh?:D

Damn that cheered me up.

Just like against Fiji eh?:D

Damn that cheered me up.

:(

Argentina played fairly well. We really need to work out a way to get them into a competition outside the World Cup. Ireland, on the other hand played rather poorly...

Not that I particularly care as an Australian supporter. :D

It does at least make the finals more interesting. England are not playing well, though Wilkinson's boot is practically unfailing as always... Frankly that's all that got them through this far. Should Australia play well (as we likely will, the WC tends to bring out our best, though our first match of the WC was a bit... hmm).

I naven't seen any of the french matches to my memory, but I hear they've been playing rather poorly.

O'Discroll

:D

That game was the RWC 1999 qtr final, and England lost 44 - 21, so by considerably more than the 15 points accumulated by Jannie de Beer's drop goals.
South Africa went on to the finish 3rd in the competition, beating New Zealand into 4th place.
The better team undoubtedly won on the day.
linky (http://www.rwc2003.irb.com/EN/RWC+History/Great+Players/Home+page.htm)
Really? I was sure it was a different game, not a WC match.
my memory's getting worse.
Anyway, it's a tad asinine to imply the drop goals didn't affect the outcome of the match. It stretches the lead ever more, forces the other team into a start off at 1/2 way again and puts pressure on them into needing to score tries quickly to make up the deficit, thus opening them into making mistakes.

As for NH teams being full of "nancy boys", I'd rather play a back line of Peel, Wilko, Jauzion, O'Discroll, Patterson, Williams and Thomas than any of the hulking muscle masses the Islanders seem to consider backs.
because those ppl have done so well against SH teams in recent times...

If we carry on this way, we've had just one NH team beating a SH team - and that's England, and that's not saying much.

It looks very likely we'll have a complete SH semi-final - Australia-NZ and Argentina-SA - what a terrible situation.

The '99 QF between SA and England? At half time it was 16-12 and then De Beer proceeded to hit 5 goal kicks - they made a difference, and, to be honest, it was a clever game plan against a slow England pack - I do feel the penalty for opting for a drop goal should be higher than it is, either by dropping points or exchanging possession.

I can see France beating NZ, they looked very happy beating Georgia.

The American's first try against SA last night. Fucking awesome.

because those ppl have done so well against SH teams in recent times...

You, then, have no appreciation of aesthetics? You'd rather see 15 over muscled Tongans clobbering each other out of the way than genuinely skilful, elegant players for 80 minutes?

What does "ppl" denote anyway?

You, then, have no appreciation of aesthetics? You'd rather see 15 over muscled Tongans clobbering each other out of the way than genuinely skilful, elegant players for 80 minutes?

What does "ppl" denote anyway?

He should try watching Rugby League, 26 big blokes bashing into each other for 80 minutes.

And they call it "entertainment" :rolleyes:

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/5591/330343hz2.jpg

The All Blacks, in... pink?! (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4223542a1823.html) This is so wrong. :p

South African player says: "We don't respect Fiji"


South African centre Jaque Fourie has delivered an emphatic message to the World Cup's fairytale team ahead of the Sunday quarter-final in Marseille.

He said “Fiji don't deserve the Boks' respect and they're not about to receive it now. [...] We've got to show no respect for them."


(link (http://www.radiofiji.com.fj/fullstory.php?id=4435))

Bad form, Fourie. :( I would be absolutely delighted now if South Africa lost, but unfortunately that's not going to happen.

South African player says: "We don't respect Fiji"

Bad form, Fourie. :( I would be absolutely delighted now if South Africa lost, but unfortunately that's not going to happen.
Then SA don't deserve the respect of the World's rugby fans.

You, then, have no appreciation of aesthetics? You'd rather see 15 over muscled Tongans clobbering each other out of the way than genuinely skilful, elegant players for 80 minutes?

What does "ppl" denote anyway?

Well done. You've just described the All Blacks.

"ppl"=people. (txtspk)

Well here we go then, in what's possibly the penultimate day that England can viably call themselves World Champions, albeit technically only.

Lord knows the patriot in me is hoping we can beat them Aussies but it's a slim, slim hope and I have a feeling, knowing the Aussies, that the last points in the game will be an Aussie drop-kick - just to rub it in after Rob Andrew's and Jonny Wilkinson's previous successful efforts.

We have France against NZ and I feel that the fact that it's in Wales and not in France will put the odds in NZ's favour by quite a large margin.

Scotland and Argentina should be interesting, I expect an Argentina win though as I think they're a genuinely good side. I'm kind of rooting for the Scots though just cos I like most Scots.

As for Fiji-South Africa, the only reason I want SA to win is that they're likely to put up a better challenge for NZ in the finals over anyone else in this pathetic half - I then hope NZ crush South Africa.

So my predictions are:

England 12 - Australia 32
France 17 - New Zealand 45
Scotland 10 - Argentina 15
Fiji 14 - South Africa 28

I have plucked these off the top of my head.

So my predictions are:

England 12 - Australia 32
France 17 - New Zealand 45
Scotland 10 - Argentina 15
Fiji 14 - South Africa 28

I have plucked these off the top of my head.
I agree with your winning teams but not with your numbers.
I think England will score a few more points (but still lose of course ;)) thanks chiefly to the boot of Wilko (though possibly to the speed of Sackey as well).
If Argentina can neutralise Paterson, they'll win comfortably. Only two tries have been scored against the Argys in four games. If Paterson can't kick, Scotand won't score.
SA will demolish Fiji unfortunately - espesh in the last 1/4. Hopefully not before Fiji helps NZ by taking a few of the SA players out!

As for NZ-France: Depends on which French team turns up to play. Could be a tight game, most likely a runaway like you're predicting.
However...
NZ hasn't been put under any pressure thus far - especially their forwards. If France focuses on playing up front, kicks deep to pressure the back 3 and looks to contest and challenge turnover ball (which NZ excel at) it would disrupt NZ gameplan and make for a very close game. Oz beat them at the last WC by disrupting the NZ game plan by doing pretty much the above - and NZ didn't have a plan B (which was truly appalling of them) to cope.

I came across some interesting stats today about how well NZ has really been doing.
Thus far, the All Blacks have:
made 58 handling errors - more than any other team;
won 7% of tightheads - 5 of the other 7 teams still playing are into double figures % wise;
won 18% of lineouts against the throw - placing them 6th out of the 8 teams left in the competition.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/4/story.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10468104

Considering the standard of the teams NZ have been facing, it doesn't add up to a particularly impressive forwards display.
This could well be their weak point.

I suppose the big question is whether or not Dan Carter is up to form, certainly he has not been that good this year and that could screw up the All Blacks. The other thing was that the All Blacks probably have a Plan B this time. When they met the Australians in 2003 (remembering that the Australians were also at home), their entire line of thinking had been thrown into disarray with the re-arrangement of the team, so Plan Bs could not really be thought of.

Discipline is the big thing to look at though. The ABs lost to Australia in 2003 on penalties. Make sure that you don't give the Frogs any penalties, and keep up on defence, and they should win.

In saying that, Demented Hamsters, Barringtonia's predictions are probably on the ball. On Close Up last night, you had a female rugby champion, Laurie Mains (ABs coach in 1995) and a talkback sort of person all suggesting quite large score lines. If you really want to hear it, here it is

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1390813?bandwidth=128k

Discipline is the big thing to look at though. The ABs lost to Australia in 2003 on penalties. Make sure that you don't give the Frogs any penalties, and keep up on defence, and they should win.

In saying that, Demented Hamsters, Barringtonia's predictions are probably on the ball. On Close Up last night, you had a female rugby champion, Laurie Mains (ABs coach in 1995) and a talkback sort of person all suggesting quite large score lines. If you really want to hear it, here it is

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1390813?bandwidth=128k
In the NZ herald, Griz Wylie also said pretty much the same thing. I'm just feeling superstitious and not wanting to jinx them by confidently thinking they'll win.
Also, here in HK there's lots and lots of Pommies who would love nothing better than rub salt into a Kiwi's wounds upon seeing NZ lose - especially if said Kiwi had confidently predicted an easy NZ win. Thus I've become used to saying I'd love them to win but ain't expecting it.

As for penalties - one thing that bothers me there is the opposition constant argument and complaints about NZ performance around the edges of the breakdown (where NZ is doing so damn well). If France constantly pick on the referee about it and are lucky enough to have a stodgy NH ref, we could well see NZ getting penalised at nearly every breakdown.

Guess I'll find out tomorrow. Damn game's on at 3am here and I have training tomorrow morning. Can't see myself getting up for it and wandering down to the local.

Oh, England, that was amazing! Absolutely fantastic. I just can't stop grinning now. :D

Oh, England, that was amazing! Absolutely fantastic. I just can't stop grinning now. :D

Ah, finally I have some confirmation - that really did just happen. The Australians also looked as if they were having a little trouble believing it.

Ah, finally I have some confirmation - that really did just happen. The Australians also looked as if they were having a little trouble believing it.

No no, it's a bad dream! :eek:

Well you all have to admit, England totally outplayed Australia there. Although Australia were lucky to miss a kick right at the death, as well as a few drop goals throughout the second half. In the end I have to say that England were deserved winners.

AH WOO WOO WOO!

I got England's score right at least - pity Australia didn't live up to their score :)

Well, I really hope this gives some hope to France - Lord knows we'd rather face France than NZ.

I thought England should have kept it within the pack, they were way dominant over Australia but really...

...Australia allowed the turnover so many times it was pitiful.

England backs are not particularly good, their forwards are fantastic and, for all his missed kicks, Wilkinson was superb in defense.

Anyway, I can't stay awake for NZ-France but at least England are through to the semi-finals.

WOO HOO!

In the end I have to say that England were deserved winners.

Although I'm biased, I agree. England were, for the most part, superb. They provided a skilful and highly entertaining match... that had me on the edge of my seat, goddamnit. :p The Aussies were a good opponent, but England was clearly the better team.

Well, I am the first person here to say this

another four years

f**********************************ck

Well, I am the first person here to say this

another four years

f**********************************ck

Let me be the second (NZ'er living in Norway)....

f**********************************ck

Losing to the 'orrible Frenchies, oh the ignominy of it all :headbang:

This has turned out to be one of the most amazingly fantastic days ever.

I woke up this morning thinking I was going to watch both my countries (England and France) get eliminated.

England beats Australia. Woo, I think, this way it won't be quite as bad when France loses to the All Blacks.

France beats New Zealand. England and France both advance. And one of them will make the final.

Ye gods, this has put me in a great mood. :)

http://www.creepshowcreeps.com/community/images/smilies/england.gif http://www.dardasha.net/montada/images/smilies/anti-madrid/france-flag.gif

Well, I suppose it is time to start the important guess work. Who is going to replace Graham Henry? As we all know, he is either going to resign or be sacked in the next couple of days.

I suggest Buck Shelford - perhaps he can get them ready for 2011

Oh, and something else. There is already a Bebo group entitled

"The Wayne Barnes is a Cheat and Biased Group"

Wowowowow.

Who'd a thunk it?

Roll on Fiji...

Well, Australia lost. There goes that. Guess I'll barrack for New Zeal... Agh. I just want to see England lose. :p

Ha, it's great reading people's guesses in retrospect, and here I was thinking that the results were going to be woefully predictable! But really, it was 16 vs 15 for France...

OK! This means Fiji will beat South Africa and Scotland will beat Argentina ...

What a thoroughly amazing victory by both France and England...

I said earlier that I thought England would not make it this far. I am glad I was wrong for a change!

I think I also said I think France could win the title as well.

:p

AAARG!

If i went out friday night and put a fiver on England I'd have won £250.

Where's the justice?

England is awesome.

The death of northern hemisphere rugby has been misreported. Rule Britania &c.

On a lighter note: Allons enfants de patrie &c,

At the moment, I'm supporting anybody who isn't South Africa.

Fiji so should've got through.

At the moment, I'm supporting anybody who isn't South Africa.

Fiji so should've got through.
Was never gonna happen. Fiji just haven't quite got the level of fitness/preparation/players/cash to train for all-out 80 minute rugby. I always figured SA would win it in the last 20 minutes.


I was thinking about the NZ game today and it struck me that the problem with NZ is not that they're 'chokers' (as everyone gleefully loves to throw at them).
No, they're worse than chokers.
They're arrogant.

They appear to labour under the belief that they should (and will) win each and every game through scoring tries, regardless of the opposition they're facing. It's almost as they view scoring any other way is showing weakness.
That's what happened last night against France (and 4 years ago against Australia).
NZ had a wealth of possession (~70% apparently) but the French side were too strong in their defence so NZ went nowhere most of the time. Instead of opting to kick to get past the French defence, pressuring the back three and looking to force a turnover (which NZ did on occassion in the game), they bullheadedly (and arrogantly) stuck to pushing forward slowly.
They then had a perfect opportunity 5 minutes before the end to kick a drop goal (they were stuck 10 metres out from the French line for a good 5-6 miutes slowly going nowhere) but still refused to take the option - even though it would have won them the game. Watching it really felt like NZ still arrogantly at that late stage believed France would crack and they'd win with a try. Almost like they didn't want to win through a drop goal cause that would send the msg they can't score tries (and Heavens! respect their opposition's defence) and anyway, that's what the boring English do.
And the boring English do do that. However the boring English are still playing in the WC and NZ ain't.

I can't understand why NZ, after playing most of the last 4 years through their backs decided to concentrate on just their forwards. I can't remember seeing either rokocoko or sitiveni touching the ball more than a couple of times each. The French defensive line was totally flat and as far forward as is possible without getting pinged for offside, yet NZ didn't once (afai can recall) kick over the top, forcing them to turn. That was another option opened to NZ the last few minutes but instead they continued with their driving one-off the ruck, even though it hadn't proved effective for the previous 75 minutes.

Thus twas arrogance that lost them that game - and the one before that in '03.

Real shame, because NZ had total dominance of the game. If French defence hadn't been so incredible (and if a certain match-winning forward pass been noticed), I feel NZ would have won the next game easily. And possibly the one after that.

I read Richie McCaw (where was he last night? The French certainly wrapped him up well - I can't recall hearing the commentators say his name at all) saying, "In the first half they forced us to play aerial ping-pong - we didn't want to play like that". Well, duh Richie. France was hardly going to let NZ play free-flowing running rugby now, were they? It was bloody obvious their strategy would be to kick deep because they knew they couldn't match NZ's superiority in the mid-field. The fact that this strategy didn't occur to NZ again shows the level of arrogance abundant in the All Black camp.
I mean, jeez! even a deranged rodent could see before the game that this was what France was going to do!
If France focuses on playing up front, kicks deep to pressure the back 3...it would disrupt NZ gameplan and make for a very close game

Ah well, 2011 at home it is then.

At least Argentina managed to make it through, thus giving me a 50% success rate in predicting who'll be in the WC semis.

So now who's going to win the semis?

hmmmm.....
.
.
.
.
don't care now. rugby's a stoopid game. wah!
;)

What the hell? Is this world cup still going?

It was bloody obvious their strategy would be to kick deep because they knew they couldn't match NZ's superiority in the mid-field.

I think France had been saying this would be their strategy all week.

Nevertheless, why did NZ not kick?

Bizarre.

The semis are wide open now and I'd hate to make a prediction given I was so wrong.

Actually, in my defense, I doubt anyone really gave England a chance though, in hindsight, it was known that the English pack was still very good and that Australia were perhaps the weakest of the Tri-nations, especially their pack.

My predictions for Arg-Sco and SA-Fiji weren't so far out - SA doubled the score of Fiji and Arg-Sco was fairly low, close-scored game.

To some extent I feel England really won their match whereas NZ lost theirs.

England-France is your typical game, I'd give France the advantage but again, who knows.

Can Argentina raise their game for SA - SA look really haphazard a lot of the time, they're not gelling though, if and when they do, they should be the better team.

I'm thinking France could win the whole thing now.

I still think SA will beat Argentina. Argys have done fantastic to get this far, but I feel they're still not quite up to the level of the top 4 in terms of overall ability & consistency.

As for the France-England game, I honestly don't have a clue. It pains me to say but I feel slightly inclined towards England.
England pack was awesome against Oz. If France lets England play their boring (yet effective) 10-man rugby, England will definitely dominate and squeak into the finals.
Let's not forget France were totally dominated by the All Blacks the entire game. It was due to France's amazing defence, a little bit of luck and NZ's appalling strategy they won. Had it been England against France on Saturday, England would have won due to being smart enough to do a bloody drop goal when it was needed!
Can France play that amazing again, after just one week's break? I think it's a tough call for any team.


However that said, after such a huge game, France are back playing on home turf with an enormous boost to their confidence. France plays best when they're confident, so while I feel England have a definite forwards advantage over them, their passion might push them all the way into the finals.

This World Cup is effectively over for me in terms of watching live matches - I think the rest of the games are evenings in Europe so that's 3am in HK.

If England make it to the finals then perhaps but, even then, I doubt I'll stay up for the match.

This World Cup is effectively over for me in terms of watching live matches - I think the rest of the games are evenings in Europe so that's 3am in HK.

If England make it to the finals then perhaps but, even then, I doubt I'll stay up for the match.
This WC is over for me, but not because of the time the games are on!
You could always get up at 2.30, head to Devils, catch a couple hours sleep after the match, then onto work subsisting on coffee and redbull to get ya through the day.
Or do what I did today and call in sick.

This WC is over for me, but not because of the time the games are on!
You could always get up at 2.30, head to Devils, catch a couple hours sleep after the match, then onto work subsisting on coffee and redbull to get ya through the day.
Or do what I did today and call in sick.

Couldn't resist :)

A "Used All Black Team", listed on New Zealand website Trade Me, attracted early bids of as little as $1.

The "seller" described the product as being "fully reconditioned earlier this year, and all parts rotated".

"Unfortunately the choke is stuck on full. Pickup from Auckland Airport."

Trade Me administrators removed the listing this morning, but not before a number of people bid on the item.

One of these people, who bid $NZ1, said a cheaper model could be secured at Sydney Airport for 50 cents - a reference to the Wallabies' exit from the tournament, at the hands of England, on Saturday.

They're already making jokes about them. Bumped into a mate (who was almost in tears at 5am Sunday morning) this evening who told me one:

What's the difference between the All Blacks and a tea bag?
The bag stays in the cup longer.

Even better joke; Oxo have made a new product for Welsh and Irish markets, it's the laughing stock.:)

Anyhoo, England will lose. Despite being ranked highly in the world, having some truly wonderful backs, and an unsurpassed ability for gamesmanship, the crappiness of the Aussie pack is renowned. France, with the likes of Ibanez, Betsen and company, are unlikely to be crushed in quite the same way.

To be honest - nothing that can be said between the Antipodes and England will come close to the centuries old rivalry between England-France.

It's all been very friendly this World Cup, I watched the match Saturday with Aussies and it was extraordinarily good-natured, then again it was a genuinely good match.

My French friends on the other hand, there's been emails, some banter, all fun...

...for now :)

However that said, after such a huge game, France are back playing on home turf with an enormous boost to their confidence. France plays best when they're confident, so while I feel England have a definite forwards advantage over them, their passion might push them all the way into the finals.

It's a tough one to call. I think France have shown the best form. However, they do have a remarkable ability to put in a world-beating performance one week, then struggle to achieve mediocrity the next. If they can manage to do that again then England will go through, or have no-one but themselves to blame.

France know how to beat England, the last few times they've met being a case in point. They had a game plan to beat NZ by drawing them into a type of game that didn't suit them and the All Blacks fell for it. Against England they can play their more natural game and will win I think.

Good grief!! How did that happen?

:eek:

:D:D:):D:D

A simply inspired game from England, perhaps weren't the best team at all times, but managed to deliver when it mattered :)

I wouldn't even have bet on us getting past group stages.

:eek:

:D:D:):D:D

A simply inspired game from England, perhaps weren't the best team at all times, but managed to deliver when it mattered :)


Inspired was the last thing it was. Hard, grafting, terms like that; but certainly not inspired.

no it wasn't inspired, but a win is a win... given how we were rank outsiders before the start of the championship nobody is more surprised than ourselves.

People will moan... screw 'em and their sour attitudes. It's only a game!

An interesting evening indeed, I did not expect them to get past the group stage based on how they were playing previously. Certainly a reformed group of players.

I meant inspired in the way that they were able to pick themselves up off the floor, and after being the laughing stocks of the world cup after the thrashing by RSA, to win two huge games like that is simply incredible.

I didn't mean it was a hugely skillful or the greatest game they'll ever play, but to even get this far seems pretty fab

It was ugly but it's a win.

Thank god they scored a try and thank god France didn't as that had been the main thrust of taunting over the week, that England can't score tries.

To be honest, I still don't think we can, it was a fortunate first try in the first few minutes that essentially won a close scored game.

Ugly, but effective.

That was my thought when I saw the result: What? They actually scored a try?

:p

Well, watching it again properly, I think France were stupid to rely on the up and under constantly throughout the match. Once again we've seen a good team lose for lack of a plan B.

It's not that England have a plan B either, but, and I think much like Argentina, they've kept winning by sticking to basic rugby.

People have said, exciting as it is, that this has been a step back for rubgy in the eschewing of running play for basic maul and kick but, honestly, France just kicked at every available opportunity and it's ironic that England scored from a form of up and under.

Having said that, the real culprit in the England try was the France No.14 who dropped off Lewsey in the expectation that the France No.15 had it covered - it was an unlucky bounce but the No.14 could have bundled Lewsey into touch if he hadn't dropped off.

Onto the final and I can't see it being great rugby no matter the turn-out - close perhaps, exciting perhaps, but good rugby?

I doubt it.

Thank god they scored a try and thank god France didn't as that had been the main thrust of taunting over the week, that England can't score tries.

To hell with the whingers: it's test match rugby. You either win and go through, or you lose and, if you are a bad loser, are reduced to taunting.

That was my thought when I saw the result: What? They actually scored a try?

:p

See?

Man, if you'd bet money on England getting through to the finals after the way they've been playing up - and including - the RWC pool matches, you'd be a very rich person. The bookies were offering 50-1 iirc.

I bet the rest of the rugby-playing nations will breathe a huge sigh of relief when Johnny Wilkinson finally retires. I don't think it's any coincidence that England played like shite the last 3 years and a certain England #10 has been injured throughout the time. Which, I think, shows that he's not just a good kicker, but also a good reader & controller of the game.

It was ugly but it's a win.

Thank god they scored a try and thank god France didn't as that had been the main thrust of taunting over the week, that England can't score tries.

Ugly, but effective.
feels weird me - a kiwi - defending the England rugby team against a brit but here goes...
England play to their strengths. And their biggest strength is their forward pack and #10. Why try anything else?
When you're in a knock-out competition, all teams tend to play conservatively. Look at some of the results of the past tournaments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_world_cup#Results
This style of play definitely suits English rugby to a 'T', which is why they've progressed as far as they have - and which, in hindsight, anyone should have been able to see that, had they got past Pool stage, they could go all the way.

So castigating England for playing conservatively is a bit harsh. All teams are at this stage. If you don't, you end like NZ and on the plane home 2 weeks early wondering what went wrong.

Also it's only been in the last 15-20 years that we've started seeing cricket-type scores. Traditionally rugby was a low-scoring, grinding out a win, game. All England are doing, one could argue, is playing rugby the way it was always played.

*snip*

I'm being as realistic and pessimistic as I can because I can hardly believe the team is in the final - I feel that if I become in any way jingoistic about this that, at best, I come off as a crowing fool and at worst, simply a fool.

I think all England is biting their lips right now.

It's like buying a lottery ticket and being all blase and carefree whereas deep down you're all 'please dear god let me win the jackpot'

:)

Well, watching it again properly, I think France were stupid to rely on the up and under constantly throughout the match. Once again we've seen a good team lose for lack of a plan B.

It's not that England have a plan B either, but, and I think much like Argentina, they've kept winning by sticking to basic rugby.

People have said, exciting as it is, that this has been a step back for rubgy in the eschewing of running play for basic maul and kick but, honestly, France just kicked at every available opportunity and it's ironic that England scored from a form of up and under.


France played to their plan B, they just didn't play to their plan A. The gameplan they had for New Zealand was right, since it's the only real way to beat New Zealand, keep them pinned back in their own half and out muscle them.

The thing was after they beat New Zealand they should have gone back to the style of play that they've beaten England before with, seeing the advantage in the backs and playing to it, spreading the ball wide and attacking. When they did do that they were making 5 yards or so every phase, but they kicked away so much ball and played tight rugby and played into England's hands by trying to beat them at their own game.

What I'm interested now is how teams react after the World Cup, England are in a similar situation as they were in the last one, with the majority of their players around 27-29 and more older than younger. Unless they blood some youngsters in the next year or two after the WC I think it could be another difficult 4 years for them.

What I'm interested now is how teams react after the World Cup, England are in a similar situation as they were in the last one, with the majority of their players around 27-29 and more older than younger. Unless they blood some youngsters in the next year or two after the WC I think it could be another difficult 4 years for them.
iirc, the average age for English team is 32. This is definitely the last hurrah for most of them.
In a way, it'll work to England's advantage. Last time, they were getting on a bit, but a lot of them still had a year or two left in there - meaning England didn't have the opportunity (or the will) to blood younger players.
Yes, playing the old guys has worked for them this time round but it was a close call. Most of the time I doubt playing such an old pack would.
After this RWC most of England team will (i.e. SHOULD) announce their retirements, leaving English Rugby 4 years to build a younger team from scratch leading up to the 2011 RWC. If they leave it a year or two and keep picking the same ageing players, they'll have major problems.


I'm being as realistic and pessimistic as I can because I can hardly believe the team is in the final - I feel that if I become in any way jingoistic about this that, at best, I come off as a crowing fool and at worst, simply a fool.
Oh, I think most of us on this board will forgive you for indulging yourself in a bit of jingoism right now. Considering how everyone had written England off before last week, just them getting into the Final is a big enough achievement to crow about.

iirc, the average age for English team is 32. This is definitely the last hurrah for most of them.
In a way, it'll work to England's advantage. Last time, they were getting on a bit, but a lot of them still had a year or two left in there - meaning England didn't have the opportunity (or the will) to blood younger players.
Yes, playing the old guys has worked for them this time round but it was a close call. Most of the time I doubt playing such an old pack would.
After this RWC most of England team will (i.e. SHOULD) announce their retirements, leaving English Rugby 4 years to build a younger team from scratch leading up to the 2011 RWC. If they leave it a year or two and keep picking the same ageing players, they'll have major problems.


Yes, but their squad has a lot of players clustered high with a few really old ones. Glancing at the Squad ages you've got a few over-30s who will, but a lot of 28/29 year olds who I think will want to hold on a while, especially since several of them, Easter, Perry, Shaw and others came in to the International game late and want to get a full go at it. It would be foolish of England to make the same mistake twice in a row, but I think it's a possibity if a number of those players try and keep going.

Ah well, the only thing making an England World Cup Final in any way palatable is the thought of NZ and Aus being out of the tournament.

Come on the Argies, at least some of them speak Welsh:p

PS the Welsh team watched Free Willy on the way home, hopefully it gave them an idea about Wales getting out of their pool

Oh, I think most of us on this board will forgive you for indulging yourself in a bit of jingoism right now. Considering how everyone had written England off before last week, just them getting into the Final is a big enough achievement to crow about.

Oooh, no. No jingoism, please. Joyful celebrations, fine. Quiet satisfaction that the bulldog spirit has not died, okay. But it needs to be moderated with a healthy dose of modesty and self-deprecating humour.
Like the three England fans I saw on TV last night, falling down drunk but desperate to inform the viewing public that France had played really well. Hopelessly drunk, but terribly earnest and well meaning. Does my heart good to see.

So...South Africa vs England. Had to be, really, didn't it?

Not going to be another 36-0 mauling, but I reckon SA will be fairly comfortable (and certainly deserving) winners. My prediction is about 20-12, with SA scoring a couple of tries and only Wilkinson scoring anything for us.

I bet the rest of the rugby-playing nations will breathe a huge sigh of relief when Johnny Wilkinson finally retires. I don't think it's any coincidence that England played like shite the last 3 years and a certain England #10 has been injured throughout the time. Which, I think, shows that he's not just a good kicker, but also a good reader & controller of the game.

I think it's more the nature of the backup than anything else. Hodgson was supposedly a running rugby outside half without good enough backs outside him to play that game, and he couldn't handle the pressure of making kicks. Stick a decent outside half who was used to 10 man rugby in and I don't think there'd have been a huge difference. Wilkinson is very good make no mistake, but he's not godlike.

So...South Africa vs England. Had to be, really, didn't it?

Not going to be another 36-0 mauling, but I reckon SA will be fairly comfortable (and certainly deserving) winners. My prediction is about 20-12, with SA scoring a couple of tries and only Wilkinson scoring anything for us.

This is going to sound very out of place for an Aussie, but I'll say it anyway, I'd rather England win this one. I want to see SA downed after the Fiji comment. They deserve it.

This is going to sound very out of place for an Aussie, but I'll say it anyway, I'd rather England win this one. I want to see SA downed after the Fiji comment. They deserve it.

What did they say about fiji?

This is going to sound very out of place for an Aussie, but I'll say it anyway, I'd rather England win this one. I want to see SA downed after the Fiji comment. They deserve it.

As a Welshman I'm begging SA to win it. I couldn't stand all the very new English rugby fans crowing about two wins in a row and how they're the best side in the history of the game and similar rubbish.

I wonder if Jonny will get any special attention? :p

If SA can neutralise him, England will lose as they are far too dependent on his ability to kick goals.

I don't think Wilkinson is all that special. You only need to look at the USA to see that, while England stunk to all hell in that match Ollie Barkley still scored something like 21 points and was very influential.

I see no reason why he couldn't be comparable at the very least to Wilkinson. Oh and am I the only one who noticed that all young Brits now kick the same way Jonny meaning that they all look like they are about to take a crap right before they kick the ball. Which is really annoying/amusing.

I think he's one of the hardest tacklers in the game and generally recognised as such. I think he's enormously influential on the team - the forwards feel confident that their efforts won't be wasted when he's playing.

I think he's extraordinarily committed, both in his practice and his seeming ability to be everywhere on the pitch.

I don't think he's the sole player on the England team though.

I think South Africa have shown themselves shaky and, surprisingly, I'm not sure, aside from line-outs, that their pack is that strong. They've also not been tested too much and have won more on capitalising on other's mistakes that on actually working a great try against difficult opposition.

Again, it comes down to the breakdown - if the SA backs can't get the ball enough then, sad to say, Jonny is likely to kick to victory because England sure as hell can't score a try.

Well, I am hoping that South Africa win this cup; the last thing we want is England to get to up themselves by winning the cup twice in a row. Certainly the Springboks have some impressive players that could outplay the likes of Wilkinson.

The best bit of this mornings match had to be Habana's try in the 74th minute; at Britomart (I was there because I had a lecture at 10am and had taken an early train), there was a TV set up and we all applauded when he scored that try.

Also, don't think I haven't noticed the votes for France have crept up from 10 to 17 since they beat NZ.

I have asked the Mods to let me know all those who voted after the fact and will be publishing a list of the miscreants when I receive it.

For the record I voted Ruffy's All Stars because I was too gutless to actually put down my thoughts, gutlessness that was justified by my poor estimates for the QFs.

I think he's one of the hardest tacklers in the game and generally recognised as such. I think he's enormously influential on the team - the forwards feel confident that their efforts won't be wasted when he's playing.

I think he's extraordinarily committed, both in his practice and his seeming ability to be everywhere on the pitch.

I don't think he's the sole player on the England team though.

I think South Africa have shown themselves shaky and, surprisingly, I'm not sure, aside from line-outs, that their pack is that strong. They've also not been tested too much and have won more on capitalising on other's mistakes that on actually working a great try against difficult opposition.

Again, it comes down to the breakdown - if the SA backs can't get the ball enough then, sad to say, Jonny is likely to kick to victory because England sure as hell can't score a try.

I think it's become as much a mental thing as anything. Since he missed their years of lows and it was his replacements abysmal kicking that helped them sink so low. Now he's back it's something to give them extra confidence etc.

I think where South Africa's pack'll win is at the breakdown, England's backrow isn't great and there's no real openside flanker. I think a lot of turnovers'll will go SA's way.

I wonder if Jonny will get any special attention? :p
I hope so. If SA decide he merits 'special attention', they'll probably have at least two people trying to take him down, meaning we'll effectively have 14 against 13. And with Robinson and Sackey in the side, we'd make SA suffer. Hopefully.