RWC 2011

IMO those teams that will advance form their pool make this RWC fairly predictable, everyone thinks it is the ABs turn but past world cups have taught us that there is almost always an upset, 1995 SA v NZ, 1999 FR v NZ, 2007FR V NZ.

Some crucial games which might spice it up a bit

Pool A
NZ v Fr
Obviously Fr v NZ become a crucial game, I just can't see Fr turning them over but if there is one team in the world who could just come together on the day it is the french. Tonga Canada and Japan will present no problem to either team.

NZ to win group Fr ru.

Pool B
Scot v Arg
Is it possible that Scotland could beat either Eng or Arg. If England lose to ireland on Saturday the Scots will know that the last key game in the group may decide everything....Scots always raise their game v Eng. Scot v Arg game seems to be the most interesting with the potential for either team to win but the Argentines are lacking up front and without Hernandez. Georgia and Romania, whilst physical, will not worry anyone.

Eng to win group Scot ru

Pool C
Aus v Ire
This fixture will be very close...both teams knowing they can avoid SA if they win the group. We will know a lot more about both of these teams come Saturday; Ireland really need to start their RWC campaign with a confidence boosting win against England this weekend as they only play USA after the weekend before facing Australia. Their next real test will be versus italy who may feel they have a sniff at Ire in the last game of the group. USA and Russia make up the group.

Aus to win group Ire ru

Pool D
Wales v Fiji
Well Wales are definitely in the group of death; the history v Samoa and Fiji is well documented but I think Wales are much more dangerous in possession than they have been for some time, fitter, well lead and with a well organised defence. Where Wales lack is the front row, which explains Jenkins travelling; pray Jones stays fit. Forward domination in general worries me. Our 2nd row must also stand up and the new back row must fulfill its potential. They must also be careful not to talk it up against SA as their performance v NZ last week showed they are back in the groove. Had Wales had a dismal warm up run I would have gone for Fiji but i think they are justifiably confident to get out of the group.

SA win group Wales ru


Knockout
SA v Ire - SA
This fixture illustrates just how important winning the group is! SA all the way.
Aus v Wales - Aus
Best back line in the world v a young confident Welsh side...upset possible but unlikely.
Eng v Fr - Eng
based on experience at RWC and playing leicester rugby
NZ v Scot - NZ
I can't see an upset here

Semi
Eng v Aus- Eng
Tough one to call but my feeling is that if Eng have got this far they will be brimming with confidence and have found a way to grind out a win. i.e. slow, setpiece forward domination and Jonny.

NZ v SA - NZ
The real final! I go with NZ but lets face it the hosts have a peculiar habit of C%^&*$G.

Final
Eng v NZ

Home advantage , the best 10 and 7 in recent history if not ever versus the expectation they will could fail again against a side that has had significant success at RWC, lead by a winner and with a points machine at 10. Recent performances by England suggest even if they get there with the easy draw they have they just don't have the rugby brains from 9-15 to do it....but since they have picked a battering ram for a squad and know how to win ugly then if they make the final, whilst underdog, they have a chance.

I think NZ will do it but I thought they would win in 1995 and that Aus would win in 2003.

wouldnt say fiji are as much of a threat as samoa are to wales.

also think the SH sides underestimate the welsh team (speaking to my auntie who lives in aus, loves rugby but had no idea who warbuton is so... wales may upset S.A)

likewise ireland may upset Aus

france upset NZ

argentina upset england or scotland and vice versa

basically you cant say the most likely thing as like you said its a world cup and despite AB dominance for however long look at their runs in the WC...

I can assure you no team is under estimating any other team, it is the fans talking up their teams.

From a South African perspective I have seen sensible posts from Welsh and Irish fans saying if their teams click they could turn over SA or OZ.

I have seen threads where the general trend would go from no definitely not, to maybe, to surely, to of course we can, to well haven't seen anything from SA that they could score tries or our back row are better to the Ozzie forwards are weak.

So it is the fans talking their teams up. Now I don't have a problem with that after all that's why we are here. But guys wind themselves up to a point where one has no choice but to fire a few shots of your own

This is RWC year,first a few stats,it is being held in NZ,since 1903,33 sides
have won in NZ[including Lions 6 and a rest of the world side]
Rwc winners,Nz 1,England 1,Sa 2,Aus 2.
Nz have never beaten Aus in a RWC score is 0-2
SA lead 2-1 in wins versus NZ
France 2-2 versus N Z
England have never beaten them in a RWC
NZ have never lost a game at group stage[the only team to do so]
No team failing to win there group has won a RWC
In my opinion Group A NZ winners,France runners up,with France you don`t know but Lievremont has already hinted he won`t field his first team
Group B the only REAL Group of death,But England or Scotland but maybe not in that order.Argentina an unknown quantity judging by the Wales Match.
Group C can`t see past Australia or Ireland but not maybe in that order
Group D SHOULD be SA and Wales ,but don`t take Fiji or.Samoa for granted.
Knock out stages any bodies,but Semis NZ.SA,Aus,France
after that anybodies guess,

biltongbek wrote:I can assure you no team is under estimating any other team, it is the fans talking up their teams.

From a South African perspective I have seen sensible posts from Welsh and Irish fans saying if their teams click they could turn over SA or OZ.

I have seen threads where the general trend would go from no definitely not, to maybe, to surely, to of course we can, to well haven't seen anything from SA that they could score tries or our back row are better to the Ozzie forwards are weak.

So it is the fans talking their teams up. Now I don't have a problem with that after all that's why we are here. But guys wind themselves up to a point where one has no choice but to fire a few shots of your own

yeh fair point, i try to give and unbiased view but its never going to happen- when i say SH teams underestimate wales i should but I HOPE SH teams underestimate wales...

Yeah Welshy these teams are professional they cross every T and dot every I, with video on all players these days they know more about their opponents than their wives do

I actually agree with this completely except I think Samoa will replace wales at no. 2. in the group, losing to Oz in the last 8.

I think here England will have the measure of Oz- Just don't see Oz have the depth to win 3 straight.
We'll pip SA. If we don't SA to win another.
On our soil...goodness...

I agree with most of your choices for pool winners and QF/SF/Finals teams.
But I just do not have that extra confidence in most of the teams. Only the ABs look truly solid at this exact moment in time. And, to me, this uncertainty is what may make this RWC a lot more interesting than many expect. Here is why:

Pool A
NZ - that RWC history
France - can be great, can lay an egg (un oeufs), can lay two eggs (deux oeufs), have Llivremont (l' oeuf grands), always primed for the ABs

Pool B
England - are they coasting, or simply plodding? The team which beat Australia twice, or were clobbered by Ireland?
Scotland - the team which beat the Boks or hammered by the ABs? With just a little cutting edge.........
Argentina - it ain't 2007, so what is left in the tank? Average age of their forwards - 54

Pool C
Australia - looking mediocre now, but we know they will improve, but by how much?
Ireland - not great in the practise games, but is this the team that put a licking on England, or the team which almost lost to Italy?
Italy - Italia, Italia, you beat France, you almost beat Ireland. You were awful against England. Your women are lovely.

Pool D
South Africa - A lot like Aus, will the real Boks please stand up? PdV can stay seated.
Samoa - They beat Australia and will expect to do well. They want to taste Welsh blood.
Fiji - They have tasted Welsh blood and recommended it highly to the Samoans.
Wales - dear me, what is Wales at the moment? Don't think they know - yet. They put their players in a refrigerator to make them fitter. Nuff said.

Le grand oeuf est un oeuf casse....Lievremont is being replaced post RWC. I expect France to sulk for the entire campaign and make England's job even easier.

As for Samoa getting a taste of Welsh lamb....yes well it is their turn isn't it but fiji will also feel that we are ripe for the taking. if we make it to the quarter expect to see Gatts in the front row as all our players will be in small pieces.

It just can't happen again but it is one of those little sideshow dramas that will make this a cracking RWC despite everyone feeling it's NZ turn...we have all felt that before!

I blame any failure by Wales to progress on the coach and we all know where he is from.

For what it's worth I think that France will give it to England in the quarters then Australia will give it to France in the semi, that's what I keep telling myself anyway. I don't know why we've developed this mental block against England lately but if we came up against them in the semi's I would be more than a little nervous.

Pool C

A lot has been said about how close Ireland Wallabies game will be. Perhaps some light will be shed on this on the weekend - perhaps not. On paper yes it could be close but on form and where these teams are at now I don't see Ireland getting close.

Ireland have lost their 3 games on the trot? Yes they always rise for England and yes in Dublin again this weekend. How much to read into it I don't know.

They have only one game, against the USA, before hitting the W - can't see how their preparation has been ideal -

Rob,
I hear you about Iremand. But do the Wallabies look like world beaters at the moment? I am not slating the Wallabies. On the contrary. I simply do not see any team outside the ABs loking like they are playing consistently well right now. That means a more level playing field for more teams, and probably some good upsets. OK, Ireland have not looked terribly good in the practise matches, but that's prqactise and will be different when things get serious in a few weeks. Reasons for optimism (or less pessimism).

Doc, you need to remember Auatralia have been playing the All Blacks, comparing theri performances to Ireland's is unfair. Ireland have been playing against France and Scotland who the All Blacks thump on regular basis

Here is my prediction:

Group A- NZ 1st, France 2nd
Group B - England 1st, Scotland 2nd
Group C - Aust 1st, Ireland 2nd
Group D - SA 1st, Wales 2nd

The above DEFINITELY WONT HAPPEN.
Somewhere somehow there will be a result that will upset this

doctor_grey wrote:Rob,
I hear you about Iremand. But do the Wallabies look like world beaters at the moment? I am not slating the Wallabies. On the contrary. I simply do not see any team outside the ABs loking like they are playing consistently well right now. That means a more level playing field for more teams, and probably some good upsets. OK, Ireland have not looked terribly good in the practise matches, but that's prqactise and will be different when things get serious in a few weeks. Reasons for optimism (or less pessimism).

To be fair the W main side have only played the ABs and Boks this year. They have done the Boks twice including their main side in SA and were shocking against the ABs though in a 3 tries to 2 affair.　You may see what they can do tomorrow against the ABs again. Generally I think their prep will have them much better placed in terms of match fitness given the hardness of their games etc - after this weekend Ireland only have the USA - not a great prep overall to be matching W IMO.

What is the Wallabies main side to play Ireland - No Drew Mitchell, no Matt Giteau, injury concerns over Benn Robinson and Berrick Barnes, Elsom dropped as captain.

What would you say the Aussie team likely to play Ireland is?

Agree with that Rob, Ireland are going to be medium-rare when they face the Wallabies.

I actually think if that were to happen, France could destroy England this time. However if England do win they will go all the way again, and I predict Eng v SA final. Just see NZ cocking it up again.

I believe that Ireland have the game to beat Aus... if they attain forward dominance then Aus will look very beatable.... we should forget the 2nd half demolition of the bok scrum in Durban given Smit was on at tighthead.

However if they win the 3N this weekend I think it will be a step too far.... the momentum the would gain from the victory would raise their morale significantly.
Same could be said for Ireland..... 4 losses in a row would be a disaster for their confidence and with no BOD it will be an uphill struggle against a near first XV ENG team.

If FRA get to QF vs. ENG I'd expect them to do the usual and roll over. FRA have severe mental insecurities when it comes to playing ENG. I could imagine the french looking at the teamsheet, seeing JW name on it and thinking... we may be better but its just destiny that we won't win... not against him, not at the RWC.

geoff998rugby wrote:Here is my prediction:

Group A- NZ 1st, France 2nd
Group B - England 1st, Scotland 2nd
Group C - Aust 1st, Ireland 2nd
Group D - SA 1st, Wales 2nd

The above DEFINITELY WONT HAPPEN.
Somewhere somehow there will be a result that will upset this

fully agree geoff. And i think samoa will take the place you have allocated wales.
Samoa is as good as theyve ever been and after the oz win their support here in nz is assured after all their remaining tickets were snapped up.
Theyll have too much pace and physicality for wales and the oz result will have proved to them anything is possible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/welsh/14680895.stm


So as i was saying...it's important that Wales don't talk up their game before playing SA.

Gatts wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/welsh/14680895.stm


So as i was saying...it's important that Wales don't talk up their game before playing SA.

Very brave thing to say in a group Wales have. I know every player aims to win but it's not always wise to say it particularly right now imo.
If Wales don't make it out of their group and I would think the betting odds are lower than them winning the WC. Then the wee man will look a wee bit stupid!

Unfortunately Wales wont have a nice time in pool play with the teams they are facing. If they dont front up in a near bashing mode- a trait of this years 3N and the Oz Samoa match, then the'll need to survive some other way.

Oz have felt this heavily physical defensive mode already agaisnt Samoa and NZ and seemed to have tried to accommodate it by bashing eachother up in training this week and introducing big hard straight running guys like Samo and Vickerman.

From it little Genia was concussed twice this week from reports.

Might pay to watch the final 3N match tonight to get an understanding of whats required. I believe tonights match up is generally the favoured final pairing at the WCup with the bookies.

I had hoped that someone in the Wales camp might have flagged making public statements like this as doing nothing for our rep...having gatland as a coach means having to deal with his pathetic WUMS before each game and now it seems Wales most senior back is at it too. The best teams are quietly confident and would only make a statement like that having won the semi.

Everyone is talking about can we beat SA...well it is isn't just SA, it is Fiji and Samoa, Australia or Ireland and then England or France that we would have to beat before facing NZ or Boks in the final.

Russia.... don't be surprised to find some EPO bottles in the hotel room.

Georgia RWC2011NSD!!!!

RE: shane's comments

i think you guys are just reading the head line.

what he said was he will probably retire after the world cup but who knows. but he would hang up his boots if he had a world cup medal.

that is very different thing to saying wales will win.

"I have said this will probably be my last competition in a Welsh shirt, but nothing is written in stone.
We will have to see what is around the corner. But I'd certainly be happy to hang my boots up if I've got a World Cup medal around my neck."

dogtooth wrote:RE: shane's comments

i think you guys are just reading the head line.

what he said was he will probably retire after the world cup but who knows. but he would hang up his boots if he had a world cup medal.

that is very different thing to saying wales will win.

"I have said this will probably be my last competition in a Welsh shirt, but nothing is written in stone.
We will have to see what is around the corner. But I'd certainly be happy to hang my boots up if I've got a World Cup medal around my neck."

he is not saying WE ARE GOING TO WIN IT....but the intimation is clear and he evens says

"I know there will be a few smirks when I say that but I do firmly believe that on our day we can beat anyone"


On our day we can beat anyone.....really? What does that actually mean because on various days in the last 50 years we haven't beaten NZ or SA for 10 years. We beat Aus once I suppose.

It is talking us up and we don't need the attention

Wales should be dismissed out of hand.The win against England was a fluke as was every try that we have scored and penalties that we got.The win against Argentina was lucky and even at full strength we will be lucky to finish 4th in our group.
The sabre rattling and whistling in the dark on this thread is comical.
Just enjoy your boys giving their all and it gets you where it gets you.

To be honest I think France getting NZ in the group stages is a blessing in disguise for them. I think (and kind of hope, even as a France supporter) that NZ will beat them comfortably in the pool stages. This will mean that if they both get to the final (big if) NZ will be over confident. We all know what the French can do when they feel like it, and RWC history shows that when France beat the All Blacks that is affectively their final anyway. Might as well make it the really final.

I agree Jaysus ,France wont beat them in the group stages . Think the IRB did that on Purpose coz even if they did the AB could still go on to win the WC

Tomorrows match OZ v NZ could be interesting. If the ozzies perform well, I don’t think the NZ team would like the idea of a semi final against SA and then watching FRA v AUS. That’s three teams on their day that can beat against NZ.

France won't get anywhere near the final....they have a phobia about England at RWC......but if they did get to the final the one team NZ would absolutely hate to face is France

Gatts wrote:France won't get anywhere near the final....they have a phobia about England at RWC......but if they did get to the final the one team NZ would absolutely hate to face is France

I agree they have a phobia about England especially in world cups, that’s why I said “big if”. But France being France anything can happen.

Absolutement!

France play Japan and Canada before NZ....no real test but a chance to build momentum with what i expect to be two huge victories

Could they beat NZ at group stage, any other team you would say probably not but Les Bleus are the exception to the rule

Winning the RWC is a big thing for some countries,World champions,a Big cup,winners medals,honours,maybe even knighthoods for the coaches.for
four long years you are kings of the hill,no matter how poor your results afterwards may be.Maybe IRB number one rated briefly or otherwise.
For losing coaches the sack,players retiring or mass exodous to a better paying job.Jibes of chokers or worse,ALL your players are rubbish no matter how good they are .Because they don`t have a winners medal.
Reality is only maybe 5 sides have a realistic chance of winning it despite the posturing and preening.
There waiting for them is the dark side NEMESIS as it has always been
The All Blacks ready to ram the chokers jibe down there throats.As they have done every time since 1991 .

Gatts wrote:France won't get anywhere near the final....they have a phobia about England at RWC......but if they did get to the final the one team NZ would absolutely hate to face is France

We would rather face France than SA or Oz. We beat them at the same venue in a final by 20 points. Just because they have had two huge upset victories (out of 5 in Wcups) doesnt mean we fear them. Silly logic really.

Well you couldn't have faced SA that year could you? And you can't play them this year in the final either.

First, if france have reached the final it means they will be on fire having at least England and Aus to get there.

Second, NZ have RWC provenance for 'stalling'

Third they have been beaten soundly by France in the knockout phases when favourites for the competition in 99 and 07.

Hardly silly logic

Taylorman wrote:

Gatts wrote:France won't get anywhere near the final....they have a phobia about England at RWC......but if they did get to the final the one team NZ would absolutely hate to face is France

We would rather face France than SA or Oz. We beat them at the same venue in a final by 20 points. Just because they have had two huge upset victories (out of 5 in Wcups) doesnt mean we fear them. Silly logic really.

What! You mean that world cup nearly 25 years ago that no one cared about.

Honestly don’t underestimate the French, you’ve played them three times in the knock out stages and the score is 2-1 to the French.

We can meet anyone in the final. The tournament is set up that way. Would you like me to paint the scenarios for you?

What has SA got to do with 'that year' or my response. Is somehow my response meant to also cover the fact that SA had political problems? Funny that? Must have missed that.

'Soundly beaten?' 3 points in 07. 14 in 99.

Your comments were 'the one team NZ would absolutely hate to face'...all I said was that was silly.

Would you consider your team would 'absolutely hate to face' another that has on the odd accasion beat you when they more often that not lose?

No. Didnt think so. Silly logic. Reread it.

And so what Jaysus... I was commenting that we wouldnt 'absolutely' hate to face them- who are you are others to determine that. As an AB fan I would welcome it. With open arms..embrace it...so would the team.

What is it with you people?? Gee it must be a different world down there. And we don't underestimate anyone. Which is why we usually win most games. Yes we get beaten now and then. So what?

Gatts how would England have done in Final in 2003,with Austin Healy,Johhnie Wilkinson ,Richard Hill,and Back up fly half off injured
and the Ref giving every 50/50 decision to your opponents.
Fact is France could win the the pool game ,of course they could,Wales could beat SA,Ireland Could beat Australia.Argentina could beat England and Scotland.
If they get cocky and field a weak side France are more than capable of being beaten by Japan.
Don`t make the mistake of thinking teams are just there to make up the numbers.
JAYJUS that team that no one cares about ? went nearly 4 years unbeaten afterwards. NO RWC winner has come close to that since.
You are talking an RWC ,knockout foo tball,key injuries or a refs decision goes against you .THAT happens to other sides not just the All Blacks.
ONLY in 1999 did France win decisevlily,because the all Blacks got cocky thinking it was all over by half time.
This year there at home where only 33 sides have won since 1903,All Blacks may well not win the RWC.But don`t write them off before a ball is kicked.
RWCS NEVER go exactly to form,France winning the Group might mean an easier route to the final for the AB`s`if it can work for the Boks?
As for me I`d love to se a Japan v Samoa final but it won`t happen

Just commenting on the fact that one win 24 years ago doesn’t mean you’ll win again same venue or not.

I think people get their knickers in a twist with All Black supporters because they assume they’ll win (not all NZ supporters of course). For example I remember Chris Rattue from the NZ Herald writing that there was no way that they would lose to the French in 07, he even said it was there “divine right” (what a tw@t).

Being the best team year on year you’ll just have to put up with people being smug when you don’t win the “big one”.

emack2 wrote:
If they get cocky and field a weak side France are more than capable of being beaten by Japan.

If you are right i will buy your beer for the rest of your life

emack2 wrote:Gatts how would England have done in Final in 2003,with Austin Healy,Johhnie Wilkinson ,Richard Hill,and Back up fly half off injured
and the Ref giving every 50/50 decision to your opponents.
Fact is France could win the the pool game ,of course they could,Wales could beat SA,Ireland Could beat Australia.Argentina could beat England and Scotland.
If they get cocky and field a weak side France are more than capable of being beaten by Japan.
Don`t make the mistake of thinking teams are just there to make up the numbers.
JAYJUS that team that no one cares about ? went nearly 4 years unbeaten afterwards. NO RWC winner has come close to that since.
You are talking an RWC ,knockout foo tball,key injuries or a refs decision goes against you .THAT happens to other sides not just the All Blacks.
ONLY in 1999 did France win decisevlily,because the all Blacks got cocky thinking it was all over by half time.
This year there at home where only 33 sides have won since 1903,All Blacks may well not win the RWC.But don`t write them off before a ball is kicked.
RWCS NEVER go exactly to form,France winning the Group might mean an easier route to the final for the AB`s`if it can work for the Boks?
As for me I`d love to se a Japan v Samoa final but it won`t happen

I didn’t say no one cared about the team, just the tournament. This is understandable with it being the first tournament. Anyway this was all before rugby turn professional so you can’t use it as any kind of yardstick.

Ps I’d like a Fiji v Samoa or Russia v Georgia final (Think they’d meet before the final, but it’s not going to happen anyway). Firework anyone?

Taylorman

Thw reason why I don't think any of the 3N sides would want to face France in the KO stages is that they are the one team who are unpredictable.

Also they have only played 10 matches vs. 3N teams since the last RWC.... the few matches countries have played vs. France is not going to be much guide to their RWC tactics or players.

They play amazing or awful... there is very little inbetween.

The one time any team will fancy their chances will be the match after they have reached rugby nirvana/perfection.

87 - Amazing semi performance vs. Aus ... didn't show for the final
99 - Amazing semi performance vs. NZ ... didn't show for the final
03 - Amazing QF performance vs. Ire.... didn't show in SF.
07 - Amazing QF performance vs. NZ... didn't show in SF.

France are well due a RWC I don't think anyone could disagree... and they probably have given the tournament some of its greatest matches... yet they can't win the ugly matches.. and to be honest I don't think they want to.

emack2

in the 07 QF not all of those NZ players that went off were injured... some were tactical. In essence the coach should take the blame for under estimating the French and signing off 30 mins from end.

NZ could have killed off that game... just like they could have killed off the game in 99... but they refused to take their chances, win ugly.

You can blame the ref but in reality NZ should only look at themselves in both matches. Momentum is everything, France took it by the horns in the 2nd half of the QF07 and generally decisions go the way of momentum.

If you ask how Eng would have done if they had players missing... well in 07 they got to final with a bunch of half crocked has beens.

Players like Thompson, Tindall, Barkley, Farrell, Lewsey were all injured either for the RWC itself or the final.... yet they got there and almost won it. Wilkinson had about 10 matches in 3 years yet such was his professionalism that he was near his best yet again. Have you seen the players that played in the final??? Flood, Hipkiss, Peter Richards, Worsley & Chuter... they were not even then good players or close to being in the first choice 22.

That is the sign of true champions... bringing out performances when its needed. Its not demolishing opponents, its defying critics, odds, age, injuries and putting in a perfomance that no one thought you still had in you.

Jaysus,so by your criteria Rugby Union didnt exist before 1996,only England,
Australia,or SA have won a RWC.That a side with a loss rate of less than 19% losing just 31 games in that period.
That has consistently beaten the top other two sides in the world for most years since the game went pro,with obvious short periods 1998.2002-3,2009.
Are a team unworthy of respect because they have`nt as you quaintly put it
the big one.
You can be smug ,when your side beats that side consistently in or outside a RWC .
I don`t care who is the RWC holder until they can beat the All Blacks consistently,and by the record no one has then holder or not they are NOT World champions in my book.
My ethos is known to all here,I am no hypocrite and I won`t detract a single word.
To write off 90 years of History by saying it does`nt count,tell that to the folks of Cardiff,Newport,LLanelli.Swansea, Munster,and all the other nations whse provinces or national teams have Beaten the All Blacks.
Or those who wrote "How can we avoid the All Blacks,"or were wetting themselves about being in the same group during the draw awhile back.
Not use it as a yardstick,of course you can they had to change the laws to stop that team being so dominant.
Are you so naive to think that sides or players before the PRO era given al the advantages of todays technology would`nt have been as good.
PLEASE don`t talk such arrant,bumptious rubbish.

The other teams are not there to make up the numbers but effectively that is what they will do even they have qualified to play at a RWC it doesn't mean they can win it.

There are favourites - we all know NZ are favourite and with home advantage their usual crumbling under pressure seems even more likely despite being on excellent form- and there are teams in the 2nd tier that could outperform there such as Argentina did in 2007..and then there are the 10-12 teams who CANNOT win RWC.

And Taylorman...beating Fr 25 years ago in the first world cup when SA weren't in it is not a nod to apartheid so don't be so defensive...a World Cup with no SA was/is/will always be irrelevant.

As for France, beaten is beaten. NZ lost, twice, when favourites for RWC to France...I repeat NZ would rather face , in a RWC final, teams that they play regularly rather than France who they have played occasionally and have made NZ look foolish at RWC.

Crack on and explain the permutations if it mean that much to you....you know exactly what I am talking about...SA and NZ win their groups...beat Aus/Ire and Arg/Scot/Eng in the quarters and face each other in the semi.

i seriously believe the seeding was done in such a way that France wont get the opportunity to knock out the All blacks in the playoffs.Thats why the AB v France match will have paddy o brien himself referring assisted by bryce lawrence ,stevie Walsh(nzer at heart ) Glen Jackson will be holding down the fort as TMO in case any Frenchies decide to be silly and score tries

FA0019 I have never read anywhere,the players that went off were,UNINJURED so I must bow to your superior knowledge.
It may well not have been the best 22,they were well beaten
by the Boks in the Group stage.That may well be the stuff of champions
BUT they DID not win,I admit it was a very fine England
performance.BUT has nothing to do with what would have happened
in 2003 in a similar situation.A scrappy final settled at death knock
after a 120minutes hardly decisive. In my scenario it may never have happened.
AS to coaches Tactical decisions,Aron Mauger should at least have been on the bench,most NZ experts concede that.Dan Carter was injured pre -match
went in 90% fit,worse he admitted he go on 90% fit in an interview before the match.BUT when he went off ABs were leading,then Nick Evans was crocked too.
As for closing it down and winning ugly could`nt agree more but otheres here don`t agree with me.

emack2 wrote:Jaysus,so by your criteria Rugby Union didnt exist before 1996,only England,
Australia,or SA have won a RWC.That a side with a loss rate of less than 19% losing just 31 games in that period.
That has consistently beaten the top other two sides in the world for most years since the game went pro,with obvious short periods 1998.2002-3,2009.
Are a team unworthy of respect because they have`nt as you quaintly put it
the big one.
You can be smug ,when your side beats that side consistently in or outside a RWC .
I don`t care who is the RWC holder until they can beat the All Blacks consistently,and by the record no one has then holder or not they are NOT World champions in my book.
My ethos is known to all here,I am no hypocrite and I won`t detract a single word.
To write off 90 years of History by saying it does`nt count,tell that to the folks of Cardiff,Newport,LLanelli.Swansea, Munster,and all the other nations whse provinces or national teams have Beaten the All Blacks.
Or those who wrote "How can we avoid the All Blacks,"or were wetting themselves about being in the same group during the draw awhile back.
Not use it as a yardstick,of course you can they had to change the laws to stop that team being so dominant.
Are you so naive to think that sides or players before the PRO era given al the advantages of todays technology would`nt have been as good.
PLEASE don`t talk such arrant,bumptious rubbish.

What the hell! I never said that the teams of old couldn’t have played to current standards. I couldn’t possibly comment on that, I was 4 when the first world cup happened I can only go on what I’ve read, and what I read was that a lot of teams didn’t put much stock into the first world cup.

All of this don’t retract from the fact that one win 24 years ago doesn’t mean future results are guaranteed.

I’m not writing off 90 years of rugby, but to say that the modern game is the same as 90, 50 or 20 years ago is foolish, just look at the number of law changes.

Ps I never said I was smug