RWC 2011

First topic message reminder :

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.

Yea the rugby channel is good. Can be monotonous with a lot of the replays. Its hard to do rugby 24/7 so they try to vary it.
Too soon for kirwan but he'll get there. I believe thats his ultimate goal.
So whats your pick tonight?
By the way donald duck has just fired waikato into the itm final with a good display.
Brilliant last minute try that he finished off. Scored two.

I hope a narrow All Black win,BUT Oz in Oz never easy and they won ugly against the Boks at home.That deserves respect from any team
Boks should have unleashed the Steyn bombshells he can still win games in 3s

I wish someone will explain to me what winning ugly is all about, every aspect of rugby needs to be executed with precision. Whether it be what the forwards need to to to dominate possession, be it hard physical defensive battles or finishing moves that results in a score, with all due respect this idea that running rugby that sometimes looks like basketball is the only reason rugby is attractive is short sighted and a little biased.

The reason why rugby is such a great sport is due to the many different dimensions and facets, I am starting to get the impression some of you should rather watch Rugby League, as there you can see the one dimensional sport where everyting is just about running

Yes in some ways Donald may have been underated always good at
Super and ITM level.
IF you could pick a fault with the All Black coaches is the failure to find adequate cover for Carter and McCaw.
Easy being on the outside looking in isn`t it? just think of the harm the Crusaders did to Slade and Brett. With regular game time at FH they both may have been the answer.
Not easy being back up to the star player,look at the frustration of playing behind Fitzy for example.

Hi, Biltong quite the contrary I have watched Rugby in many styles for over 60 years,and enjoyed most of them.
For me for want of a better term is scrambling a win by just shutting down a side defensively and kicking goals.
IF you are perfectly honest that is how the match was done last week
Broussow had an immense game.
Winning for want of a better word penalties .by the simple expedience of
physicaly pinning.The tackler. So HE couldn`t release the ball in the tackle
if he wanted to.
Some Refs ping you for it some don`t give Morne Steyn a shot any where in your half he`ll slot them all day.
But even you must be frustrated withyour near test side not being able to crack a scratch side and score tries.

Winning ugly as far as im concerned is winning when you perhaps shouldnt have. Holding out a seemingly better opponent on the day.
Usually an unspectacular game or win but having the fortitude to last.

Our sydney match was described as one last year.

I dont really get it either.

If I look at last weekends game, there was intensity, physical battles, fantastic runs, last gasp tackles and two great teams playing hell for leather, forget the result, the game was great, I personally thought it had every element I love about rugby.

And no Alan I am not worried about the Boks not having scored a try in the last two weekends, I expect us to score 3 tries vs most of the teams in our pool with the exception of Namibia, from the quarters on fewer tries but what is availabe

Relooking at tonights ab team and digby ioanes hair im going to go for a 15 point win to abs now. 2 Is for digbys hair alone.

Samo's hair is worth 4 points on it's own, 1 for Digby's... yeah, 5's about right.

The preliminaries are over now,Now Well done OZ.
The RWC looks a bit more open now does`nt it,
I`ve no problems with Ted and Co.he`s done brilliantly by my criteria
an 86% win record.BUT if they don`t win the RWC the Nz media may give him a hard time.

I think that may be an understatement...i think he will have to leave NZ and I would love to have him back in Cardiff!

I havnt seen the general nz reaction to this loss as ive just woken up.
But if i were to go with gut feel after last night nzers wont be too upset with that result.
It did not give me the same sense of dread that losing in 2007 did.

NZ is now preparing itself for the reality of hosting the main event in a matter of days.
We have so much to look forward to still and we didnt have that 07 or when we last lost a 3N.

We win the 3N more often than not and we know we are a better team for our losses. So we will see this as a new start. A chance to right things at home. We lost. But for some reason it doesnt feel too bad and i think thats a good thing.

Beating us on eden park may just have got a little bit harder.
Thats my feeling. Ill see how the rest of our fans take it.

But congrats again to austrslia. That was a fantastic display of resolve, power and skill as a team. well done.

Samo is a poor man's Toby Faletau.































(In the hair stakes that is)

Taylorman wrote:I havnt seen the general nz reaction to this loss as ive just woken up.
But if i were to go with gut feel after last night nzers wont be too upset with that result.
It did not give me the same sense of dread that losing in 2007 did.

NZ is now preparing itself for the reality of hosting the main event in a matter of days.
We have so much to look forward to still and we didnt have that 07 or when we last lost a 3N.

We win the 3N more often than not and we know we are a better team for our losses. So we will see this as a new start. A chance to right things at home. We lost. But for some reason it doesnt feel too bad and i think thats a good thing.

Beating us on eden park may just have got a little bit harder.
Thats my feeling. Ill see how the rest of our fans take it.

But congrats again to austrslia. That was a fantastic display of resolve, power and skill as a team. well done.

It's great for the competition....some parity between the SH teams .....in the UK Sean Fitzpatrick is even saying that the loss may serve to correct overconfidence, that it is good for NZ. It's an interesting theory. In my view it might make the ABs take stock of their weaknesses before it is too late...a point i think you are alluding to when you say beating them in Eden park may have got harder.

Meanwhile Ireland have imploded and England have staked their claim to being the big bruising pack with a young pretender in Manu Tuilagi clearly about to make a name for himself.

I had been concerned that NZ were just too far ahead but now I am not so sure...ABs have woken up, Aussies on the crest of a winning wave, NZ beaten twice, England resurgent, France, well they are France....and Wales, well we can beat anyone on our day

Yes Gatts I was spouting a NZ win yesterday and after 20 nil down felt a bit stupid. But a narrow loss we ended up with after a frenetic game.

I've always liked it when NZ are up against it and its a pity we can't keep going into tests as the underdog because we make good underdogs!

Just saw Samo's try on the replay again and what a brilliant piece of test rugby. Really happy for the guy at this point in his career. If he does nothing else ever again he can watch that try well into his days and enjoy the moment. Though I think he might be a bit of a cult figure in the cup here as well. Kiwi's love those sorts of characters.

I'm assuming hes in the squad...

emack2 wrote:The preliminaries are over now,Now Well done OZ.
The RWC looks a bit more open now does`nt it,
I`ve no problems with Ted and Co.he`s done brilliantly by my criteria
an 86% win record.BUT if they don`t win the RWC the Nz media may give him a hard time.

I dont think the RWC is more open than it was before. W catching the ABs I don't think other teams can be too optimistic. It may the case they should be getting more worried about about W.

Pretty open now, all teams beatable as we've seen. Looking forward to it.

Yeah, the question still remains beatable by whom

Well is there anyone outside of the tri-nations that you're particularly worried about? Wales for example are looking confident and will be looking to top the group ahead of SA. Aussies did well yesterday but we've seen NH opposition beat them not so long ago, and it wouldn't surprise me if it happened this world cup again. NZ still remain the most immortal, but SA and Aus have shown us the way this year.

No team has been that consistent over the last two years, although NZ have only lost 3.

EnglishReign wrote: .

No team has been that consistent over the last two years, although NZ have only lost 3.

I think that is the whole point

England consistently successful at RWC, on the rise but inconsistent in selection and perfromance
Ireland consistently losing
Wales consistently over confident
Scotland consistent......
France, well they are France, permanently inconsistent
NZ consistently on form suddenly lose 2 on the trot
Aussies consistently raise their game at the right time
SA consistently indifferent until last week

For me it is still about Eden Park.

AB's are a different team there.

Since 95 in the 3N:
All matches: Pl 72, W 50, L 22 = 83%Wins, Ave score = 27/19
All Home: Pl 36, W 30, L 6 = 83% wins, av score = 28/16
Home (non Eden Prk) = Pl 61, L = 6 = 90%, ave score = 26/ 20

So as you'd expect at home AB's are stronger, but at Eden Park:
Eden Park: Pl 11, W 11, L 0 = 100%wins, av score = 32-18

All 3 knockouts and I think 2 pool are scheduled there so you could say that the match against Oz 2 weeks ago there is a better guide of things to come. We won't have had the 3N selection debacles nor had half the team play and half not in SA the previous week. Not that I'm taking away from the Brisbane win, which was fantastic. We're just dealing with a different kettle of fish here.

All teams get similar leading bar one or two extra days rest for some but despite our last 2 losses, combined with the fact that we've motivation to beat both sides following losses, I'm comfortable with where we are at the mo.

Oz last won there in 1986, SA have never won there, France most recent in 94 and England in 73.

Not too bad...

Taylorman wrote:For me it is still about Eden Park.

AB's are a different team there.

Since 95 in the 3N:
All matches: Pl 72, W 50, L 22 = 83%Wins, Ave score = 27/19
All Home: Pl 36, W 30, L 6 = 83% wins, av score = 28/16
Home (non Eden Prk) = Pl 61, L = 6 = 90%, ave score = 26/ 20

So as you'd expect at home AB's are stronger, but at Eden Park:
Eden Park: Pl 11, W 11, L 0 = 100%wins, av score = 32-18

All 3 knockouts and I think 2 pool are scheduled there so you could say that the match against Oz 2 weeks ago there is a better guide of things to come. We won't have had the 3N selection debacles nor had half the team play and half not in SA the previous week. Not that I'm taking away from the Brisbane win, which was fantastic. We're just dealing with a different kettle of fish here.

All teams get similar leading bar one or two extra days rest for some but despite our last 2 losses, combined with the fact that we've motivation to beat both sides following losses, I'm comfortable with where we are at the mo.

Oz last won there in 1986, SA have never won there, France most recent in 94 and England in 73.

Not too bad...

Crikey that's an awesome record...but careful, you are sounding like the Welsh, setting yoursleves up for a fall which combined with 2 losses on the bounce, NZ's well documented RWC issues and the inevitable RWC upsets might be unwise

Not too bad, mate? Not too bad at all.

These are great stats. Home field is almost always an advantage, but that is really off the charts. Even considering that the ABs have good records wherever they play at home, that is still pretty incredible.

Does that mean, in the interest of fairness, that Wanye Pasty-Barnes must referee every AB match there?

"NZ's well documented RWC issues and the inevitable RWC upsets might be unwise"
We can either use history as a discussion point, or we can't.

Our history, including our World cup here and our record at Eden Park since are historical. So is the use of unwise comments and documented RWC issues. Both historical, both have no relationship to this years event.

So which do we go by? I know which I'd prefer...

Anyway, Just thought I'd raise it. It won't be the first time its raised by NZ Journos in their attempt to influence teams to lose... but we'd assume they're bigger than that...

Of course history is a discussion point. Not suggesting don't discuss, rather that the reliance on a great track record is not an indicator of future performance AT RWC for NZ. And of course it is entirely relevant to this years event, that was my point. History informs us everything about NZ performances at RWC so the record at Eden Park whilst mighty impressive, seems to be further complicated by the record at RWC.

I was advocating caution in relying on NZ dominance at EP because the RWC performance variable upsets your equation.

Clearly EP is a huge advantage, but clealry RWC history is a huge disadvantage

T -
These are great stats. I don't think knowing those stats will influence or intimidate other teams. Everyone already knows beating the All Blacks in NZ is a tough ask regardless. But it is the job of the sports writers to bring it up. Gives all of us something to think about.

That kind of record reminds me of a club I played for during medical school, and our own pitch. Over two years, with statistically significant number of matches, it was virtually impossible for opposing teams to come there and lose.

Taylorman,high I have just read several ,articles in todays Dominion Post,
much of which I have already touched upon myself.
Viz the lack of ability,or will to change plans early that are not working.
Also I have posted article by Justin Marshall about the importance of home
advantage.Plus the Wisdom of fielding a scratch team in SA and respective buildups not creating the right edge.in the Buildup tofinal 3Ns.
I note in some comments on Planet Rugby,on Adam Thomson failing to stop
Samko scoring.His decision to stay on after sustaining his arm injury looks like his RWC is over sadly.
BUT to blame him for the try was manifestly un fair considering his injury.
Kieron Reid has about a month to regain fitness before France match BUT
they are the last side to go in against if you are carrying an injury.
The media doubts of the choice of Toeva[especially] and Guildford over proven Wingers like Gear and Sivivatu has also been mentioned.
Ted himself admitted he was`nt sure about his besy back 3 combination.
Since the squad is now picked,bar a tactical training injury the backs are as is.
You are an Auckland follower how good is Toeva? he has 33 caps but a lot of them versus tier 2 sides,and 7 tries is not a great haul.The Rocks strike rate was at least a try a match formuch of his career.
Assuming Thomson does`nt make it,Vito covers 6 and 8,someone suggests Messam as the substitute but that means 7 is a problem.
Options for me a specialist 7,Luke Braid,or Matt Todd.or even Marty Holah,or thinking out of the box George Whitelock has subbed for both mcCaw and Read fot Crusaders.
By the way are you old enough to remember the early 60`s Ranfurly shield side.Whineray,Colthurst,Waka Nathan,one of the Graham brothers Ross or Bob[captain],Kel tremain had 2 or 3 outing too.
Des Connor,Mac Herewini,Pat Walsh,Malcom man sausage,and Mick Cormack ? was most of that team from memory.

Gatts,
I think we are discussing another one of those tidbits of information which make this RWC so interesting. The All Blacks record in the RWCs is hanging over every match. But the All Blacks terrific record at home also hangs over every match. Equally. Great solid fun - talking, arguing, carping points - for now.

gatts
We could probably say that NZ has never lost a World cup game at Eden Park, but in 2011,I think I would like stronger stats than that to get optimism.
Allan.
I have always have concerns about Toeava,although this year I must concede he has played his best rugby but that was only at S.15 level.
I dont see either Braid or Todd as viable options when playing against packs like South Africa (they would chew them up and spit them out) and you can probably put England in the same category.
I always remember Frank Colthurst playing for North Auckland, but I bow to your superior knowledge

Mac Herewini and Waka were at Otahuhu my own club so i knew them personally for a number of years. I was too young to see them play but when youre that close you feel like you have anyway.

Gats:
"Clearly EP is a huge advantage, but clealry RWC history is a huge disadvantage"

Yes but my point is which history do you go by?
We have never lost a world cup match in NZ. We won it at Eden Park in 87 and 87 is the only world cup which where had every match had been replayed would have resulted in the same result such was the domination.

29-9 was our LOWEST score of that tournament.

We havnt done that well since, overseas, but as I said which history do you use as a guide?

I see that 87 has more relevance historically than any other 'history'

In the greater scheme of things that is probably the best record of any ground in the world.

But it only takes one win. With everyone being at the world cup for 7 weeks by the time the final comes up, the prospect of playing NZ "away" from home will be a different prospect.

The other fact to consider is most teams tour a country now for 1 test at a time, the more tests you play in succession the better your chances become of beating a team in their country as you get used to conditions, acclimatise etc.

In recent years SA and France have won tests in NZ, if other countries were to play three test series that likelyhood would increase.

Look back at the era before these one off tests occurred, there were more results going 2-1 because teams could work out strategies etc.

It is still New Zealand's world cup by most odds, but it isn't a forgone conclusion.

Not saying it is by any means Biltong. Everything is a guide and historically (well in the world cup era) things tend to go better for us at Eden Park.

Thats all I'm saying. whether we win or not , just like Brisbane and anything else before today, is completely irrelevant.

Its just you get comments based on 'historical reasons' that support why we wont win or why we shouldnt think we will win? Why is it that we can't retort with reasons we think we can? in the end it doesnt make any difference anyway. Its just conversation... but its still interesting...

taylorman
Any past event is historical,and can be used in various ways, what I would like to see is NZ take recent past evnts and adapt.

Biltong you are correct that the more time you spend in a country,the better the rseults get.Which is probably one of the reasons for NZ`s lack
of winsin them.
In a 3Ns or Super series Home advantage is crucial the teams flit from country to country in a week travel being the difference.
In RWCs all start on a level footing hence Home sides have only won
2 out of 6.
In a knockout Tournament you are as good as your last match,IF NZ had won there last two matches,SA and AUS.would be thinking we can`t win at home what chance away ?
That psychological edge has swung the other way,BUT recent History 2009 lose 2 or 3 games the ABs go back to Basics,put the nuts and bolts back and win the next one.
Marseille 2009,Eden park 2010.Eden park 2011,they now have the incentive to fix it.
The All Blacks have great Coaches and Players ,Now they must prove that the calculated risk was right and win the RWC.They owe it to there country,it makes no odds to me win or lose I`ll still support them.
I`m not the fair weather Supporter I was accused of by Cyril and others on the old 606 site.BUT it would still be good to see another RWC win by NZ before I die even if I care little for them.
Incidentally Biltong the Series only really mattered because historically it was usually 2-1 or 3-1 to the Home side anyway,and they were softened up by Provincial sides knocking the bejeesus out of them too.

Laurie, Thats exactly what Henrys approach is this year. 3 main things will have come out of yesterday.

The first and most important is: Complacency is dead and gone and have been replaced by motivating factors we could not have bought. With both SA and Oz using their top sides to beat us last 2 games we have been handed 'credits' towards our motivation factors. Oz and SA may have just done us a favour. We'll not know till later.

The second is the injuries to Thompson and Read. Read particularly. This will concern henry more than the loss.

The third is we lost the 3N.

That is the order of importance.

Oh, theres actually a forth...

Cooper has confirmed two things- he's a coward (McCaw) and he's faster than we thought (Nonu's try). Never seen anyone with such quick reflexes become a statue so fast. Damned fast.

Welcome home Coops... i'm sure the bro's will look after ya...

Again Alan, what risk?
There was never a risk. Still playing that tune...

Alan that is true, provincial teams could thin out a squad fast, but it helped with the conditioning of those players available for the test matches and gelled those teams together.

Taylorman ,the Calculated risk of sending a weakened team to SA,to rest,try out combinations what ever as a build up to the RWC.
Your own MEDIA [NOT ME though I agree with them],said it was a calculated risk.NOW your own MEDIA are saying it was a mistake[AGAIN NOT ME].
What Risk,THERE never was a risk?TELL that to your MEDIA IF you fail to win the RWC.
AGAIN,I say I am HAPPY with Graham Henry and Co. and the win rate it has given me.
I don`t count success by RWCs just Head to Head by that Criteria Henry
and Co. have done me proud.
My perspective probably differes from all other NZ supporters,but it is STILL valid.

Yes but the risk was to the 3N, not the World cup- the reason for my asking. You could extend it to being a risk to both but not alone to the World cup.

Vito is there instead of Messam and because of that selection is why. And he was one of the better players in Brissy.

Dagg is there because of that selection in SA- Henry admitted it. He said Dagg would NOT be in the squad if not for SA.

Taylorman we maybe at ccross purposes on this,the players I think Ted was refering to was specifacally the wings.There has been a tendecy to value,utility over specialists in positions world wide.
The trouble is in some cases they never settle in one position Mathew Tait for England for one.
The thinking in recent years is wings have to be able to cover and return high kicks basic full Back skills.Hence we have Cory Jane,Israel Dagg,Isao Toeva ,and Mils Muliana are Full Backs,All three can cover wing,further Slade can cover wing or full back.Nonu 12,13 or wing.Kahui Wing or Centre and so on.
Dagg if fit was always going to be a RWC choice,SA was his chance to prove it.
Zac Guildford is excellent at S15 but has yet to prove it consistently at test level.
WE have to trust theSelectors know best,incidentally is that just Ted and co.or is there a wider group.I thought I read some where Earl Kirton was invoved in the process too.

Amazing how its all conversation has suddenly switched over to the Cup deficiences... goes to show all this talk is fighting talk, how we can improve, our problems here or there...love it.

And theyre real issues too. Not just the usual stuff when we're winning.

Best possible position we can be in at this stage I reckon...

biltongbek wrote:Yeah, the question still remains beatable by whom

Agree Bilt. The question is beatable by whom. For my money, this is out of 3N at the RWC. Ireland v England on the weekend left me thinking neither side will be a strong factor - though England have an inexplicable easy run though their pool. England have to rely on results last year to draw their confidence aginst W in particular. But we know W are a different proposition now with Deans finally getting his selections closer to the mark. Samo, Vickerman, Horwill, McCabe, A Faingaa - were not there last year. TPN, Slipper, Palu to come back. O'Connor may find it hard to get into the side. Different kettle of fish. England won't be getting any gift games handed to them this year. Ireland? Awful so far - they only have the USA in their last before before facing W. Can't see them figuring either. France? Too all over the place for me. To come back after having 59 points put on them by W last match doubt they will be a big threat. On balance 3N has been the ideal prep.

doctor_grey wrote:T -
These are great stats. I don't think knowing those stats will influence or intimidate other teams. Everyone already knows beating the All Blacks in NZ is a tough ask regardless. But it is the job of the sports writers to bring it up. Gives all of us something to think about.

That kind of record reminds me of a club I played for during medical school, and our own pitch. Over two years, with statistically significant number of matches, it was virtually impossible for opposing teams to come there and lose.