Who are your favourites for the Semi Finals of the RWC at the moment...?

First topic message reminder :

The start of the Tri-Nations and an Ozzie loss to Samoa have added a few interesting permutations into the mix. ABs are still favourites by a country mile on current form.

Some people base their theories on History though and there are a few teams that have made semis and finals more often than others, will it all just be a little bit of history repeating?

The PI teams look stronger than ever, can they do it?

Is there an unexpected Dark Horse out there who could surprise us all...?

Pick Four Teams from the POLL of who you think will be the Semi Finalists.

Glas a du wrote:Oh Lordy!

Sorry what are you talking about mate. I don't get it?

This place does make me chuckle sometimes!

Not sure if trolling or...

France perform poorly against England - lost last 4 out of 5 matches.

England are 3-1 in world cups vs France with only one win for France in a dead rubber 3rd vs 4th game.

England are actually 3 vs 2 in world cups against Australia head to heads. Won the last 2 matches vs Australia home and away.

England are unbeaten vs Scotland in their last 3 games.

beshocked wrote:France perform poorly against England - lost last 4 out of 5 matches.

England are 3-1 in world cups vs France with only one win for France in a dead rubber 3rd vs 4th game.

England are actually 3 vs 2 in world cups against Australia head to heads. Won the last 2 matches vs Australia home and away.

England are unbeaten vs Scotland in their last 3 games.

beshocked, nice list of facts - but what point are they supporting?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

beshocked wrote:France perform poorly against England - lost last 4 out of 5 matches.

England are 3-1 in world cups vs France with only one win for France in a dead rubber 3rd vs 4th game.

England are actually 3 vs 2 in world cups against Australia head to heads. Won the last 2 matches vs Australia home and away.

England are unbeaten vs Scotland in their last 3 games.

beshocked, nice list of facts - but what point are they supporting?

That France can only beat England when it is a dead rubber!

i thought that, Biltong, but then couldn't work out the left-field comments re Aus and Sco?!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:i thought that, Biltong, but then couldn't work out the left-field comments re Aus and Sco?!

I suppose it is there to make his case stronger, you know, give it a bit more meat, one of those "we can't just beat France but also ......."

I don't know, I am bored, stopped smoking yesterday and feel fidgety.

To me Beshocked arguements make no sense.

Shocked your English right? I bet you'd feel confident enough of a win against Ireland in a once off game. Our recent dominance and yes I use the word dominance counts for nothing IMO.

I certainly don't think "Oh we've got England in Twickenham - easy win in the bag".

maestegmafia wrote:Interesting to see that there are 43 votes for England and so few English posters commenting on this thread.

I guess that means a great deal of Non English supporting posters believe England will reach the semi finals...?

I do, or certainly they have a great opportunity to. I fancy them to top their group, although that is not a certainty and if so they should meet France in the QF.

I haven't been at all impressed by France lately. Player for player I think they are much better than England, in fact I think they're probably the second best side in the tournament on paper, however they were pretty dire for most of the 6N. Even at Landsdowne they barely made a line break and were content just to kick goals of Irish mistakes and indiscipline. Even their set piece didn't live up to their fearsome reputation.

I'd fancy England to beat them in a close contest but it could go either way and the French do have a better record in NZ than England. I think England just have a psychological edge though.

rodders, also it sounds like the French have endured a particularly unhappy training camp - could mean difficulties for ML?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:rodders, also it sounds like the French have endured a particularly unhappy training camp - could mean difficulties for ML?

Yeah it could. I don't want to resort to stereotypes here but France do have a habit of this sort of thing. I've no doubt that they can just switch on the quality when they want and they're at their most dangerous when written off. Being underdogs against England would suit them down to the ground but you have to look at their recent performances and say that things are not right with them.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:it sounds like the French have endured a particularly unhappy training camp

Do the French ever have a happy training camp? In any sport? Is there a French translation for 'happy training camp'? Divisive, sulky stand-off (as seething lunatic looks on) is normally close to the mark

Glas a du wrote:

Fair enuf bud. If you mean lose, then that is a fairly realistic statement.

Gotcha.

I gotcha 1st... and last.

aslongasbut100 they support England's run to the semi and possibly further.

Red stag actually this is where we differ. I would make Ireland the favourites against England in their next meeting in the 6 nations. Yes even though it will be in Twickenham. You and South Africa in particular have good recent records against us.

The world cup is another matter though.

roddersm what has France's better record in NZ got to do with playing England? England travel better than the likes of Ireland,Wales etc.

We knocked out Australia in Australia and France in France in world cups. Can you get bigger than that?

Well yes we could if somehow beat NZ in NZ in the world cup final but I can't really see it happening!

beshocked wrote:Red stag actually this is where we differ. I would make Ireland the favourites against England in their next meeting in the 6 nations. Yes even though it will be in Twickenham.

Oh really. In that case your view on World Cup makes sense. As does mine. At least we're consistent

beshocked wrote:
roddersm what has France's better record in NZ got to do with playing England? England travel better than the likes of Ireland,Wales etc.

A better question would be what how well England travel in relation to Ireland and Wales is to do with Frances record in NZ vs Englands?

I suppose the relevence, if it needs pointing out, is that France have recent history of winning in and preforming in NZ and England don't. As the WC is actually in NZ I'm surprised that you would see this as irrelevent.

biltongbek wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

beshocked wrote:France perform poorly against England - lost last 4 out of 5 matches.

England are 3-1 in world cups vs France with only one win for France in a dead rubber 3rd vs 4th game.

England are actually 3 vs 2 in world cups against Australia head to heads. Won the last 2 matches vs Australia home and away.

England are unbeaten vs Scotland in their last 3 games.

beshocked, nice list of facts - but what point are they supporting?

That France can only beat England when it is a dead rubber!

I am not sure how much a part that history plays in a tournament that only happens every four years, but England have a good record against France at world cups. And in general whenever the sides meet France struggles even if on paper they are the superior team.

I like the way "England are unbeaten" is the phrase used to describe a draw.

TheGreyGhost wrote:I like the way "England are unbeaten" is the phrase used to describe a draw.

As much as it grinds my gears, it is to all intents and purposes a true statement.

I don't know how many times I've read on this thread that 'France are a superior team to England on paper'. It may be true, but does it have to be tacked on the end of every 'England may beat France, but...'

A fellow could get a complex

Roddersm you never answered my question.

This is about England vs France. England don't have a problem beating France in France. Why would it be harder to beat them on neutral territory?

My point about England travelling better than the likes of Ireland,Wales is that we don't have the jitters when playing the SH sides away from home.

We have a better record on SH soil than you give us credit for.

I think the fact the tournament is in NZ is irrelevant to England unless they are playing New Zealand or the pacific island teams.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:I like the way "England are unbeaten" is the phrase used to describe a draw.

As much as it grinds my gears, it is to all intents and purposes a true statement.

Indeed. And don't forget that future pub quiz question: "Name the only unbeaten team at the 2010 Soccer World Cup"

beshocked wrote:Roddersm you never answered my question.

This is about England vs France. England don't have a problem beating France in France. Why would it be harder to beat them on neutral territory?

My point about England travelling better than the likes of Ireland,Wales is that we don't have the jitters when playing the SH sides away from home.

We have a better record on SH soil than you give us credit for.

I think the fact the tournament is in NZ is irrelevant to England unless they are playing New Zealand or the pacific island teams.

A good point Beshocked. I honestly don't know who the local fans would support in an England vs France quarterfinal - it would probably be not far off an even split. Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Argentina and any tier 2 team would probably get local support vs England, South Africa might, Aus vs Eng would be roughly neutral.

The Greyghost you forgot to mention our two wins against Scotland in that period.

Anyway I don't particularly want to bash Scotland. I think the Scots are very modest about their chances at the world cup. Certainly in comparison to other sides including my own.

They have a proud record of reaching every quarter final which is normally overlooked. I think Scotland will succeed again to get to the quarter finals anyway.

Kiwirredevil to be honest it doesn't matter if people want to support England or not. If they do then fair play but if not then fair enough. I don't think the England side are going to be too bothered about playing in NZ. The weather might even be like home! I am surprised and impressed if you believe England would have non English supporters in a England vs France quarter final!

maestegmafia wrote:
I am not sure how much a part that history plays in a tournament that only happens every four years, but England have a good record against France at world cups. And in general whenever the sides meet France struggles even if on paper they are the superior team.

Well lets expore that. England have beaten France twice in world cups. In 2003 England had a superior team and won. In 2007 France had a better team and lost. In 1995 which is surely irrelevant England had the better team and lost.

So really that is only once that England beat France in WC when they weren't expected to. Hardly enough to deduce a pattern. 1 win a piece in their previous two meetings suggests that there isn't much between the sides and doesn't indicate any big edge for England. I'm surprised therefore that some English posters are so disrespectful to the French.

It's also interesting that so few people are predicting France to beat the all blacks based on their WC head to head record? Clearly historical head to head records are only relevent when applied to England and the teams they've beaten.

Not denying it's true. Just raising an eyebrow at the mischeivious nature of posting "unbeaten against Scotland in the last three games" in some kind of list of RWC credentials. Especially when the semantics are not entirely transparent.

I think the most noteworthy thing against such a list is that England are undergoing culture change. They are openly attempting to distance themselves from the 10-man percentages team of the past and trying to adopt a more creative and constructive style.

England were uncharacteristically outmuscled by Ireland and absolutely smashed by South Africa in the recent EOYT, and bizarrely ran Australia into the ground with end-to-end counter attacking rugby.

What we've heard historically is that Englands RWC success is born of pragmatism. But this time, the set piece looks shakey, the backrow less imposing, the lineout lacking reliability and an England maul 5 meters from the line no longer has that air of inevitability about it.

Last time out, and the time before that, we heard about Wilkinson the goal kicking wonder boy, the power of the forwards and the imposing nature of the back row. Now the talk seems to be of Ashton, Foden, Youngs, Flood's ability to put backs into space...

I wonder whether this historical statistics are even relevant given this change in intent?

[quote="roddersm"]

maestegmafia wrote:
I'm surprised therefore that some English posters are so disrespectful to the French.

Yesterday we were disrespectful to the Irish, now it's the French. Crikey, we are a bad lot. Or at least we are painted as such...

beshocked wrote:Roddersm you never answered my question.

This is about England vs France. England don't have a problem beating France in France. Why would it be harder to beat them on neutral territory?

My point about England travelling better than the likes of Ireland,Wales is that we don't have the jitters when playing the SH sides away from home.

No my answer is that you are talking nonsence because what you are saying is simply not supported by the facts.

Tell me how did your last result go against France in France?

How many times have England won in the SH against SH opposition since the last WC? How many times have they lost?

England & France love KO CUP rugby.

Wales, Ireland don't

[quote="SafeAsMilk"]

roddersm wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:
I'm surprised therefore that some English posters are so disrespectful to the French.

Yesterday we were disrespectful to the Irish, now it's the French. Crikey, we are a bad lot. Or at least we are painted as such...

I stated some England posters for a reason.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Not denying it's true. Just raising an eyebrow at the mischeivious nature of posting "unbeaten against Scotland in the last three games" in some kind of list of RWC credentials. Especially when the semantics are not entirely transparent.

I think the most noteworthy thing against such a list is that England are undergoing culture change. They are openly attempting to distance themselves from the 10-man percentages team of the past and trying to adopt a more creative and constructive style.

England were uncharacteristically outmuscled by Ireland and absolutely smashed by South Africa in the recent EOYT, and bizarrely ran Australia into the ground with end-to-end counter attacking rugby.

What we've heard historically is that Englands RWC success is born of pragmatism. But this time, the set piece looks shakey, the backrow less imposing, the lineout lacking reliability and an England maul 5 meters from the line no longer has that air of inevitability about it.

Last time out, and the time before that, we heard about Wilkinson the goal kicking wonder boy, the power of the forwards and the imposing nature of the back row. Now the talk seems to be of Ashton, Foden, Youngs, Flood's ability to put backs into space...

I wonder whether this historical statistics are even relevant given this change in intent?

You have your fair share of Critics here but that is a really interesting post.

Englands fundamental style of play as little as 2 seasons ago was a massively powerful forward pack who would just strangle the life out of opposition with a very astute territory game.

However recently they beat the Aussies at their own game and have come up on the losing end in just about every forward battle in the 6N with the exception of Italy. Their pack struggled in the breakdown against Ireland and Scotland and their set peice was very shaky against France.

England will almost certainly top the group with with a little luck Scotland coming in second.

Topping the group will be really important for all the teams in group B to try and avoid the Kiwis in the quarters. Bonus points will be very important.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:...

Topping the group will be really important for all the teams in group B to try and avoid the Kiwis in the quarters. Bonus points will be very important.

Don't forget there's about a 1 in 3 chance (in my opinion) that France will beat the AB's and top the group. In which case winning group B suddenly becomes a bit of a poisoned chalice .

roddersm the reality is in world cups it is 3-1 despite how you try to spin it.

England lost in a dead rubber - 3rd vs 4th game. To be honest who cares?

Wow. I am disrespectful just because I believe England will beat France for very good reasons?


Roddersm you seem to not understand. It is irrelevant how many times England has won or lost to SH opposition since the last world up to this particular conversation. Why? England won't meet a SH side before the semi final if things go as expected.

You don't seem to understand do you? France are ranked below England ( you use this point to show how great Ireland are). Lost to England in their last encounter. Have lost the last 4 out of 5 games against England. Have a poor record against England in world cups.

This whole conversation is about England vs France.If France are so much better on paper why do they generally lose?

I think it boils down to some nationalities like Ireland giving France too much respect. We are confident of victory every single time we play the French. Are you? No I don't think you are.

Let's wait and see shall we? There's a lot of water to go under the bridge before then.

beshocked wrote:roddersm the reality is in world cups it is 3-1 despite how you try to spin it.

England lost in a dead rubber - 3rd vs 4th game. To be honest who cares?

Wow. I am disrespectful just because I believe England will beat France for very good reasons?


Roddersm you seem to not understand. It is irrelevant how many times England has won or lost to SH opposition since the last world up to this particular conversation. Why? England won't meet a SH side before the semi final if things go as expected.

You don't seem to understand do you? France are ranked below England ( you use this point to show how great Ireland are). Lost to England in their last encounter. Have lost the last 4 out of 5 games against England. Have a poor record against England in world cups.

This whole conversation is about England vs France.If France are so much better on paper why do they generally lose?

I think it boils down to some nationalities like Ireland giving France too much respect. We are confident of victory every single time we play the French. Are you? No I don't think you are.

Yes and 3-1 can't be spun in to 2-0 either which is what you are trying to do.

If Englands record in the SH is irrelevent then why did you chose to mention it in relation to Ireland and Wales record?

France don't "generally lose" which is what I have pointed out. England and France are 1 win a piece in their previous two meetings so I'm not sure how that equates to "England have no problem beating France in France". Clearly you had problem the last time you were there??

Please elaborate how stating that France are capable of beating England but that England would be slight favourites is "giving france too much respect"?

Roddersm

Stop worrying about England's chances in the RWC there's plenty of Englishmen doing that already

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Roddersm

Stop worrying about England's chances in the RWC there's plenty of Englishmen doing that already

I'm not worried in the slightest. I just don't understand why beshocked jumps on any comment I make which presents any potential England opponent in a favourable light. I've already stated on umpteen occaisions that I expect England to reach the SF's. However no one is going to convince me from believing that both France and Ireland also have a chance of doing so.

[quote="biltongbek"]

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:stopped smoking yesterday and feel fidgety.

Good luck.

Of course France and Ireland could but a RWC is a different thing compared to the 6 nations and Ireland, Wales and Scotland don't seem to like the pressure of world cup games, whilst England and France seem to thrive on it, maybe it’s to do with the fact that these countries have relegation in their domestic leagues?

roddersm you look at 1-1. I look a little further back at 4 out of 5 encounters which gives a better overall picture. 4 out of 5 shows France do generally lose to England. 2 of those wins were in France.

In 2010 France coasted through all their other 6 nations games including crushing Ireland. They limped to a victory against England at home. You honestly don't think they struggle against us?

France have lost to England in the last two world cups - 2003 and 2007. One in Australia, one in France. That's a fact. That will be in everyone's minds.

You brought up in France's record in NZ which is completely irrelevant to an England vs France conversation.

Just pointing out that you probably hold certain views on France and travelling poorly because Ireland suffer in those departments.

I do respect France. They have good world cup pedigree. They perform well against every side in the 6 nations bar England. They perform admirably against the SH sides. They have notched up 2 wins against NZ in world cups. The NZ will take France seriously because of this.

France find England tough. French rugby fans agree with me!

Of course France and Ireland have a chance. Never said they didn't. They aren't the favourites to make the semis though.

This poll clearly tells you who are.

I only get annoyed because you and your buddy boyne go on about how great Ireland are compared to England because you are 4th in the world and have a great recent record against us.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Of course France and Ireland could but a RWC is a different thing compared to the 6 nations and Ireland, Wales and Scotland don't seem to like the pressure of world cup games, whilst England and France seem to thrive on it, maybe it’s to do with the fact that these countries have relegation in their domestic leagues?

Well thats your take on things based on some anecdotal evidence, which is fair enough of course.

I would say that France and England don't thrive on it at all hence England have "only" lifted the trophy once and France have yet to do so despite being in the latter stages numerous times. Once is one-off, twice is coincidence and 3 times is a pattern.

Ireland and Wales, bound by past poor showings tend to get less favourable draws, and deservedly so and therefore usually are up against the odds in terms of reaching the latter stages.

Remember there have only been 3 World cups since professionalism which is far too few to deduce any sort of pattern in terms of successful and unsuccessful teams. Also WC's occur every 4 years and an average players internation career is probably only 8 seasons so I don't think past performance counts for much and historically has been a very poor indicator of future performance.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:maybe it’s to do with the fact that these countries have relegation in their domestic leagues?

Oh hello Portnoy

roddersm with or without professionalism there are generally 5 teams always in the mix - England,France,Australia,South Africa and New Zealand.

Until another side makes a consistent impact you can't really look further than these sides.

Ok so you only count 3 world cups. England have won 1 of them and been in another final. I suppose they were fluke though.

None of the NH sides are top 3 in the world. 4th,5th and 6th are at very similar level. The difference between Ireland,France and England are that the latter two perform better against SH sides and in world cups.

If Ireland were no 1 in the world with numerous grandslams and SH scalps under their belts they would be up there as favourites. Unfortunately for you guys they are not.

beshocked wrote:
I only get annoyed because you and your buddy boyne go on about how great Ireland are compared to England because you are 4th in the world and have a great recent record against us.

Beshocked if you want to point out the posts where I have went on "how great Ireland are compared to England because you are 4th in the world and have a great recent record against us" and provide quotes then I will be happy to clarify.

My opinion is that Ireland are marginally the best of the home nations. If that upsets you then that is your problem. I have no interest in the head to head with England. What is relevent to me in the context of the WC is that we played pretty well in our previous game and I'm hopeful we can carry that form forward.

[quote="SafeAsMilk"]

roddersm wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:
I'm surprised therefore that some English posters are so disrespectful to the French.

Yesterday we were disrespectful to the Irish, now it's the French. Crikey, we are a bad lot. Or at least we are painted as such...

Milk,

Tomorrow, we will mostly be dissing... the Italians.

Ah, Grasshopper, he say "Lugby is played with odd shaped ball, you never know which way it will bounce" and "armies they are like beetles, when two meet of the same size it is not easy to choose winner by looking at past victories" The wise man he waits at least until he sees who is playing the quarter finals before making predictions.

beshocked wrote:
If Ireland were no 1 in the world with numerous grandslams and SH scalps under their belts they would be up there as favourites. Unfortunately for you guys they are not.

Do you realise that you could subsitute Ireland for England in that statement and it would still make perfect sense?

[quote="Gibson"]

SafeAsMilk wrote:

roddersm wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:
I'm surprised therefore that some English posters are so disrespectful to the French.

Yesterday we were disrespectful to the Irish, now it's the French. Crikey, we are a bad lot. Or at least we are painted as such...

Milk,

Tomorrow, we will mostly be dissing... the Italians.

Can't wait to get started on the spaghetti munchers Oh, and I will have that