who has the best chance in the WC out of the NH teams?

by Pot Noodle Miner Mon 26 Sep 2011, 4:21 pm

First topic message reminder :

Ok so if all did go according to plan and Wales play Ireland in one quarter final with England against France in the other there'd be a NH route to the final

so i was just wondering from what we've seen so far who would you're money be on to make the final?

England have always done well at World Cups and they've once again got a chance to make the final and if they face France in the quarters im sure they would really fancy themselves to at least make the semis as they always seem to beat the frogs

I think this Welsh side is very young and talented, full of athletes capable of competeing with the best but with a lot to prove, they would fancy their chances against the Irish although they'd know that they'd have to be on top of their game, Ireland have a lot of old heads in their side and it would be a case of Youth vs Experience

France.. well if they turn up on the day against England and come away with a win they could go all the way, who knows? but their French anything could happen really

i would imagine for the Irish many of their great players over the years such as BOD, POC and ROG now know that this is their last chance to acheive at a World Cup so they will be desperate to go out with a bang where as possible Quarter final opponents Wales have many players just starting out on the international scene

by GunsGerms Mon 26 Sep 2011, 9:59 pm

Bullsbok wrote:Disrespect England at your own peril , they're a team with champion pedigree

Not really. There are more welsh, Irish and French players that have experienced grand slams. There are more French and Irish players with Heineken cup medals. This English squad have actually won f all. Until recently Johnson had a pretty bad record as coach too.

by RubyGuby Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:00 pm

mystiroakey wrote:"If they were the key factors then the All Blacks would have won the last 5 world cups"

in recent times NZ have form but not pedegree, thats the difference.

pedegree is about having experienced players- players/coaches that are in the side that have done it before.

Sadly the only thing that NZ players can feed from previous world cups is a feeling of letting people down and choking.

Nopw that wont stop them turning the corner they are just so good at the game to not. But it is the only hope other nations have-- The fact they dont have pedegree in world cups.

Pedigree - Nice one Chum

by TycroesOsprey Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:07 pm

true but you and i know we were robbed by an english ref in the seventies. Since then sadly...........

by mystiroakey Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:09 pm

RubyGuby wrote:
mystiroakey wrote:"If they were the key factors then the All Blacks would have won the last 5 world cups"

in recent times NZ have form but not pedegree, thats the difference.

pedegree is about having experienced players- players/coaches that are in the side that have done it before.

Sadly the only thing that NZ players can feed from previous world cups is a feeling of letting people down and choking.

Nopw that wont stop them turning the corner they are just so good at the game to not. But it is the only hope other nations have-- The fact they dont have pedegree in world cups.

Pedigree - Nice one Chum

blah blah blah.

by mystiroakey Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:10 pm

leinsterbaby wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:Disrespect England at your own peril , they're a team with champion pedigree

Not really. There are more welsh, Irish and French players that have experienced grand slams. There are more French and Irish players with Heineken cup medals. This English squad have actually won f all. Until recently Johnson had a pretty bad record as coach too.

worldcup pedegree is the point pal

by RubyGuby Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:15 pm

That would be the same pedigree that Australia had against Ireland recently yeah! 2 RWC wins plus a lot more I think - Pedigree is Love sacks and nice in retrospect - Pedigree does not mean you Winalot as Australia with the best pedigree have recently illustrated thumbsup

by BigTrevsbigmac Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:19 pm

leinsterbaby wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:Disrespect England at your own peril , they're a team with champion pedigree

Not really. There are more welsh, Irish and French players that have experienced grand slams. There are more French and Irish players with Heineken cup medals. This English squad have actually won f all. Until recently Johnson had a pretty bad record as coach too.

not quite true as some are World Cup winners.

by mystiroakey Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:20 pm

who in the australia team has won a world cup?

forget about historic team pedegree, player pedegree is the point here surely.

also recent history weighs more on the mind than historic 'history'

Offcourse it doesnt tell you who will win a game- but it can certainly make a difference.

why did argentina beat scotland- probally because they did so well last time around, In the last few minutes of the game they were the settled team that made better decisions.

by mystiroakey Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:39 pm

Two points that i think need to be considered.

england at one point were 300/1 to win the 2007 WC.

why and how did they get to the final-

in my view it was the experience of the 2003 wc giving them belief.

why did the favourites NZ crash out again in 2007

in my view its becase they are underacheivers and have underacheived in the previous WC's and that weighed on there mind.

the mental part of sport is very telling - especially when you get to the really pressure situations.

why is it becoming harder and harder for lee westwood to win a major

why did jimmy white never win a world championship.

teams change personal (remember that) indiviauals offcourse are marked by there acheivments/losses

Why did germany(football) do so well in the last wc with kids- new personel, fresh attitude- new mentality- they are now on the up- they feel as though they overacheived, the memories will be good- england on the other hand can just think about bad decisions and underperforming, which creates this horrid knock on effect

If scotland go out of this world cup- there players next time around will have war wounds , best to start again and get rid of the mentally injured. sad but true..

sorry lol i am going on here but i think the 'mental' part of sport is so important and the above is examples of that- pedigree/experience aids that.

by RubyGuby Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:42 pm

What happened to all that pedigree against Ireland when the chips were down a few months ago? or was it different because it was not a world cup thumbsup

by mystiroakey Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:48 pm

well yeah offcourse it not the same in a 6n playing ireland in ireland- Irelands 6n''s pedigree over england took over there, also ireland had nothing to loose- the pressure on a grand slam was also on englands mind- but oireland being ireland played unbeliavable against a team(england) they want to beat more than any other

In a neautral ground , in a world cup, isnt going to be quite the same mentally

all the same irelnad played awesome and also proved how good they are against australia- The ireland team have alot of confidence and good luck to them

by Bullsbok Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:56 pm

leinsterbaby wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:Disrespect England at your own peril , they're a team with champion pedigree

Not really. There are more welsh, Irish and French players that have experienced grand slams. There are more French and Irish players with Heineken cup medals. This English squad have actually won f all. Until recently Johnson had a pretty bad record as coach too.

Funny most All blacks have multiple Tri Nations trophies ,Super Rugby trophies have won the grandslam twice at the very least but yet none of them can boast of having a world cup winners medal.

by lostinwales Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:57 pm

England Ireland will be tough to call. Yes the Ireland of the warm up match was a shadow of the team that played Oz, but the fact that England won away may well have changed the mental outlook of the team.

As for what has been talked about a lot - the ability to win games when its all going wrong - England showed they still have something when they beat Argentina where Scotland failed. They found a way to win.

by Cymroglan Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:04 pm

What happened four years ago has nothing to do with this world cup as NZ proved against France.
This is a new tournament it's the current form thats matters and I'm confident that Wales will do well this time.

by RubyGuby Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:06 pm

C'mon Cymro we have no Pedigree Munn! You know that mental stuff that stops you choking Yahoo

by mystiroakey Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:08 pm

"What happened four years ago has nothing to do with this world cup as NZ proved against France.
This is a new tournament it's the current form thats matters and I'm confident that Wales will do well this time"

are you really sure about that?

1. the talk was all about france the bogey team, the press,players and fans were so relieved to win.

2. its a knock out game, the game only will decide who tops and seconds the group.

3. its not an exact science, its a 'FACTOR'

4. NZ are by far the form team, they have the best players, with there quailty they can still beat there 'bogey team'.

by Cymroglan Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:11 pm

So we agree then that it's the best team that wins and previous results mean nothing.

by mystiroakey Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:11 pm

why are you guys so insitant on saying that we are calling you chokers because you have no world cup pedegree.

the truth is you need to switch your mentality and say you wernt good enough back then- but you are now to progress to a decent position.

you havent been chokers- you just havent been good enough..

NZ are the only real rugby chokers- yet again odds on favorite, and rightly so, If the odds were better i would back them for sure..

by Bullsbok Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:12 pm

If what happened four years ago didnt matter people wouldnt be referencing it all the time . Thats why the NZ france game was so important because of what happened four years ago , thats why England are not being counted out despite dodgy form because four years ago they went through the same patch and ended up in the final.

by RubyGuby Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:12 pm

NZ might be the "form" team but dont forget that's not RWC form so it might not count thumbsup

by mystiroakey Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:14 pm

"So we agree then that it's the best team that wins and previous results mean nothing"

Nope not at all.

by Cymroglan Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:16 pm

So it's not the best team that wins ? ,, it's the one that did well four years ago.

by mystiroakey Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:17 pm

"NZ might be the "form" team but dont forget that's not RWC form so it might not count"

its funny because you are trying to make a sarcastic comment but in truth is the most accurate post you have made on here

by RubyGuby Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:18 pm

In essence the 38 yr old Shaw, dynamic Tindall, Johnny on the bench, the one legged Moody and Jonno at the helm are the Pedigree that makes the difference - Its romantic but I'll stick to the science of winning and losing. thumbsup

by mystiroakey Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:19 pm

cymoroagam you are abit to simplistic for this discussion. If you cant work out that confidence and experience are 'factors' in competitive sport then time for sleep i suppose

by Cymroglan Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:21 pm

Confidence ? So if half of the squad has not been involved in the world cup does that mean they inherit results from four years ago.
People take in all this nonsense dished out by the media.

by mystiroakey Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:22 pm

rugby gubby i cant see us beating NZ, but i can certainly see our experience aiding our route to the final, and putting us rightly favourites (only just mind) out of the NH teams, but then the form/odds dont allways go to plan- if it did would any of us play or watch sport!

by mystiroakey Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:23 pm

cymrogan you have lost me pal. what are you talking about?

by Cymroglan Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:26 pm

Right there are 15 players in a rugby team if 8 of them had not been involved in the last world don't you think that would make a huge difference.
Going by how you think the world cup is decided then Wales should be already making their way to the airport.

by RubyGuby Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:27 pm

mystiroakey wrote:rugby gubby i cant see us beating NZ, but i can certainly see our experience aiding our route to the final, and putting us rightly favourites (only just mind) out of the NH teams, but then the form/odds dont allways go to plan- if it did would any of us play or watch sport!

Now that's a good post - Conversley I can see our inexperience having the same affect as youth skill and exuberance come to the fore with no historical hang ups - George North, Warburton, Toby, and a number of others are on fire at the moment - how about lets wait and see. thumbsup

Cymro, time for bed - we'll start again tomorrow mate thumbsup

by Cymroglan Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:28 pm

Later RG

by RubyGuby Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:29 pm

by mystiroakey Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:40 pm

you have to rebuild for the future if your recent past is gash.

here we go -rugby highlights on itv.
Is that why you left, midnight gratification?

by Feckless Rogue Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:49 pm

But what about the Irish then? The current crop are probably the most decorated of the European teams. They've been dominating Heineken Cup rugby for five years. The Heineken setup is almost identical to the World Cup. The Irish lads have been winning knockout rugby games for years. Quarter finals, semi finals and finals. They've become experts at knockout rugby in the last 5 years at provincial level.

Does provincial experience count? Or does it have to be international experience? In that case the Irish have plenty of experience of beating the Welsh and English test teams. Or does it have to be specifically World Cup experience. In that case we've already beaten a better team than we'll be meeting in the quarter or semi finals. Or does it have to be specifically knockout rounds World Cup experience? In that case we're fecked.

by Taylorman Mon 26 Sep 2011, 11:52 pm

Feckless Rogue wrote: During this World Cup our team can change the attitude of the southerners towards Irish rugby. We've already beaten Australia. A run to the final would result in the nz and aussie media being happy enough to give us the plaudits we deserve. A bunch of Triple Crowns and one 6 Nations win in Europe doesn't really wash with them. They believe they're superior. We have to get big results in their back yard to make them respect us. And we're on our way to doing that hopefully.

Absolutely. Matches like the Ire- Oz and Wales- SA one's get people talking. they certainly have here. We keep sending our team north and its usually about margins for us. Then we see the 6N and its just hard to rate it when our team goes through them all anyway.

Since those matches there's been a lot of talk and people all over are genuinely impressed but now its more that we can see the Nhers can compete in one offs (and they do that during the AI's as well) but can they now be consistent- back it up match after match. All we have to go on is past performances for that. And England and France are usually the ones to do that.

I sure hope they can. Pity its not Wales v France Ireland v England. That would have been great.

But at least as it is, the best of Ireland or Wales gets to take on the winner of England France in a semi.

I think thats awesome and can't wait for all these matches. the Nh teams have a lot to do and its all up to them. So far all the really good matches have involved the NH teams so i hope that continues...

by mystiroakey Tue 27 Sep 2011, 12:16 am

"Does provincial experience count? Or does it have to be international experience? In that case the Irish have plenty of experience of beating the Welsh and English test teams. Or does it have to be specifically World Cup experience. In that case we've already beaten a better team than we'll be meeting in the quarter or semi finals. Or does it have to be specifically knockout rounds World Cup experience? In that case we're fecked."

i dont know - its how your players handle putting on the ireland shirt, will they draw on there experiences to the good.

look at how many english players play in the highest quality football games (cl finals) and then look at them for england in world cups!

by Goosestepper Tue 27 Sep 2011, 1:48 am

good point Mys.

I would say that it took a LONG time for Irish teams to come good in the HC. Munster had what - 3 stabs at it (Northampton, Leicster and was it toulouse?) and Leinster had to wear the ladyboys hat for a number of years before we came good.

Ireland have 2 bogey teams IMO

Ireland (and Irish rugby fans) give the All blacks way too much respect, its almost mystical, theres been a number of occasions in the last 5-6 years we should have beaten them, thats the next monkey we need to get off our backs.

Also I remember the 90's when it was a big deal to beat the English ('93, '94 and was it '99, foot & Mouth delayed?) but since 04 we have no fear of them - we need to get to that stage with France.

There must be more to the "form over history" debate, there does seem to be something in the phsyce that remains long with teams even though we've gone through complete cycles of players.

History and form say we SHOULD beat Italy on the weekend. 6N History tells us we should beat Wales and England in the 1/4's and semi.............WC history will suggest something else.......

Does that leave us with form? If so Ireland are looking good up front and defensively, I'm still mightily concerned about our back play (Russia game aside - and we shouldn't count that) we don't seem to be able to make any breaks or show any creativity worth a damn (or a few metre's)

by emack2 Tue 27 Sep 2011, 2:08 am

Pedigree is about TEAMS,who have done it before .England are marginally better than 2007,a team that lost 4 times to the Boks that year.
Nowhere near as good as the 2003,side the only significant win so far was
versus Argentina . Who`d lost 2 key players,and that was a close run thing
running up a load of tries versu s Gimmes proves nothing.
Georgia made you struggle for 6o minutes ,before tiring they have yet to prove there pedigree here.

by Taylorman Tue 27 Sep 2011, 5:13 am

Sorry youve lost me on the pedigree thing. Trying to build a theory round results. NZ have no pedigree?
What does that got to do with the price of fish?
Nz have dominated 3N and sxv yet that doesnt count when the lower ranked NH based 6N and HEC somehow do figure in the pedigree debate?
Weirdest argument I've seen for a while.
I thought having pedigree was having a couple of well bred mutts.

by emack2 Tue 27 Sep 2011, 5:51 am

It is still possible,Australia and the Boks will end up in the NH side of the draw.If the Boks lose to Samoa by a big score demand a stewards inquiry
for match fixing,or a Dope test on PDV for his selections.
ALL the NH sides in a RWC on neutral territory are much of a muchness,France usually have at least one good game in them.
I suspect it maybe the Quarter final,England have been in 3 finals,France 2 so theres not much in it.
This isn`t the 2003 side after all

by Taylorman Tue 27 Sep 2011, 6:29 am

If Samoa beat SA by a big score and so do wales over fiji SA would go out so thats not going to happen.
Wales play the last match so its not somethimg SA can muck around with.

by GunsGerms Tue 27 Sep 2011, 7:00 am

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:
leinsterbaby wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:Disrespect England at your own peril , they're a team with champion pedigree

Not really. There are more welsh, Irish and French players that have experienced grand slams. There are more French and Irish players with Heineken cup medals. This English squad have actually won f all. Until recently Johnson had a pretty bad record as coach too.

not quite true as some are World Cup winners.

Some? How many 2?

by rugbyfan Tue 27 Sep 2011, 7:05 am

leinsterbaby wrote:
BigTrevsbigmac wrote:
leinsterbaby wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:Disrespect England at your own peril , they're a team with champion pedigree

Not really. There are more welsh, Irish and French players that have experienced grand slams. There are more French and Irish players with Heineken cup medals. This English squad have actually won f all. Until recently Johnson had a pretty bad record as coach too.

not quite true as some are World Cup winners.

Some? How many 2?

Shaw, Thompson, Wilkinson, Moody, Easter, Flood, Cueto, Tindall all have exprience of playing in a World Cup final - some as winners.

I love this thread - ithis side of the draw is genuinely so open that each nation can justifiably present a logical argument for their team making the final. Only time will tell....

by Breadvan Tue 27 Sep 2011, 7:27 am

I'm not predicting owt for England until I see how we do against the Scots Its win or bust for them and Engs toughest game since the opener, after a couple of shoe ins... chin

by niwatts Tue 27 Sep 2011, 7:31 am

Five of them, Wilkinson, Tindall, Thompson, Moody & Shaw have WC winners' medals.

A further six, Mears, Sheridan, Stevens, Easter, Flood & Cueto were part of the 2007 squad. Mears was the only one of those not to have featured in the final.

by rugbyfan Tue 27 Sep 2011, 7:32 am

Breadvan wrote:I'm not predicting owt for England until I see how we do against the Scots Its win or bust for them and Engs toughest game since the opener, after a couple of shoe ins...

Totally agree - England should be looking no further than the Scotland game as the Scots are bound to give it their all, and though they may not core many tries, they will punish any English indiscipline through penalties.

I'll be happy with a 1 point England win- performance is irrelevant for me.

by nganboy Tue 27 Sep 2011, 7:39 am

I'm not sure about all this pedigree stuff.
Seems the argument is a bit like...
NZ have a choking RWC pedigree so should be written off.
France have good RWC pedigree but can't win it so should be written off.
SA, has excellent RWC pedigree but will probably have to get past Aus and NZ so can almost be written off
Aus has excellent RWC pedigree but have just lost to Ireland and have lots of injuries and have to get past SA and NZ to get to the Semi so can be written off
England has excellent RWC pedigree so can't be written off making the Final where they are likely to meet NZ who are chokers so can't win it so England must be odds on to beat a team who must choke.

I think the NH consensus is that NZ is the best team in the world but will not win the RWC again.

by mystiroakey Tue 27 Sep 2011, 7:55 am

"I think the NH consensus is that NZ is the best team in the world but will not win the RWC again"

who thinks that.

i think you are wrong on every count- read the posts fully then comment

by aucklandlaurie Tue 27 Sep 2011, 8:00 am

Mystiroak
Its probably the ten million posts calling New Zealanders chokers that do it.

by mystiroakey Tue 27 Sep 2011, 8:12 am

They have been chokers in the past, thats fact.

They are still righty favourites, and at home i can only see one winner and see NZ turning the corner- but would we all be suprised if they 'choked' again.. No we wouldnt- why?

because they have done it before!

by Sponsored content