Masterplan New Zealand an expert opinion on the upcoming quarter finals.

First topic message reminder :

Here are some expert opinions on the quarter final clashes and their predictions.

Panel consists of:
Ex All Black player and coach, John Mitchell, current coach of the Golden lions.
Current coach of super XV Franchise Stormers and Currie Cup side Western Province, Allister Coetzee.
Ex Super XV and Currie Cup side Bulls coach, Heyneke Meyer.
Ex Springbok Scrum half Garth Wright.
Host: Joel Stransky

Springboks vs Australia
South Africa showed great discipline at defensive breakdwons and showed restraint with off the ball incidents.

Their strength is their defensive structure, ability to reorganise defence and scramble/cover defence. They do however sometimes make wrong decisions to come out of the defensive line. Tactical kicking is a strength and weakness, they must do contestable kicking which boils down to accuracy and must rather be done by 9 and not 10, preferable from momentum and not static ball.

Ball security for them is key. Sa must attack Australian scrum and shut down space with pressure on Genia and Cooper. Right shoulder will make it difficult fro Pocock to assist Cooper in defence. They must attack reverse markers in channel one from rucks. Select Willem Alberts over Spies to gain more momentum with go forward ball. Use mauling off line outs in poor conditions, but don’t overdo. Use edges around maul to attack and, use 8, 9, 12 by sucking in defence.

Make Australia use their thinkers/decision makers to tackle which will take them out of the immediate attack. Use 7 man lineout, get middle or tail ball, use du Preez, blindside wing, 12 and 13 going at Barnes and Cooper, SA did this a few years ago in Perth with great success and got over the advantage line every time. Getting tail ball will negate Pocock to compete at the breakdown as he will be in the middle of the maul and thus can’t turn over ball when the maul is brought to ground and will put Cooper as first defender.

Be careful of the umbrella defence, Australia will fix the Jaque Fourie to run at, then do a run around. Lambie must not come into the defensive line to quickly it will provide kick space in behind him. SA must watch for the inside ball after the long pass wide. Will SA stick to the umbrella defence which has now been studied for 4 matches or go to drift defence?

They should look at putting a fourth defender looking after Cooper, third defender will look for runners, second defender looking after Genia, and don’t over commit to the ruck, get the fowards into the defensive line quickly. Australia might attack Morne Steyn and then switch towards the forwards with inside ball to the winger.

Australia has a selection dilemma at centre, the will focus on ball retention for long periods to build pressure. There is no doubt they will ask questions on defence. Australia will want to be physical with their forwards, but conditions will be key to their game, they will want an open game and will attempt to put their backs against the springbok forwards. Australia will look at short kick offs away from Fourie du Preez and split SA, they want to isolate Habana. Australia will try to sack every line out and will use Nathan Sharpe to be the only “swimmer” in the maul to sack the drive and will also take lineout supporters out which is actually illegal.


England vs France.
Biggest strength for England is their ability to grind a win even when struggling to get momentum. Their defence is solid, the panel believes Youngs and Flood have better rythm as a combination than Youngs and Wilkinson, and England has been very effective attacking the short side. They are limited but has character and composure.

France will be tougher than has been seen. Their problem is 9 and 10.

New Zealand vs Argentina
New Zealand should be able to deal with the Argentinian scrum, Argentina will use mauling and could get one over NZ, and are expected to play negative rugby wanting to slow the ball down at the breakdown. The New Zealand defence is still seen as their biggest weakness. They are also prone to unforced errors, especially Colin Slade ,which according to Mitchell is not a brave player, he also has critical moments where his skill makes the team suffer and Weepu might be a better bet.

Wales vs Ireland
Both in form sides, well balanced, Ireland strong forwards good backs O’Gara is seen to be the key, he is tactically very good. Ireland also has good pace and skill, and importantly lots of experience. Wales looking well balanced and in form, their fitness and conditioning excellent.


Predictions for the quarter finals

Ireland vs Wales
Joel Stransky Ireland 25 – Wales 16
Heyneke Meyer: Ireland 20 – Wales 15
Allister Coetzee: Wales 21 – Ireland 18
John Mitchell: Ireland 24 – Wales 21
Garth Wright: Wales 17 – Ireland 12.

England vs France
Joel Stransky: England 15 – France 9
Heyneke Meyer: England 24 – France 21
Allister Coetzee: France 21 – England 18
John Mitchell: England 24 – France 21
Garth Wright: England 22 – France 15

South Africa vs Australia
Joel Stransky: South Africa 21 – Australia 18
Heyneke Meyer: South Africa 24 – Australia 18
Allister Coetzee: South Africa – 24 – Australia 21
John Mitchell: South Africa 19 – Australia 17
Garth Wright: South Africa 17 – Australia 10

New Zealand vs Argentina
Joel Stransky: New Zealand 42 – Argentina 12
Heyneke Meyer: New Zealand 28 – Argentina 15
Allister Coetzee: New Zealand 32 – Argentina 12
John Mitchell: New Zealand 52 – Argentina 15
Garth Wright: New Zealand 37 – Argentina 17.

Obviously there was more focus put on the South Africa vs Australia match as it is a South African show, and their predictions may also be seen as a little one eyed.

Seems like a lot of people are writing Australia off. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them reach the final, especially with Carter out. They've beaten both SA and NZ this year and will still be hurting from that loss to Ireland.

Rodders, I think it is more a 50/50 opinion I have seen, it seems posters from the UK thinks SA will win, but then it seems the Kiwi
s thinks Oz will win.

Not so sure what I think.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Personally from a very biased and self interested position, I'm hoping South Africa beat Australia, and obviously the NZ beat Argentina.

On the other side of the draw. What can you say? Would be nice for France to pull one out and knock over the Poms so we can accuse them of choking for four years, but in all likelihood we all secretly know that France have been defined by their success over NZ for over a decade and now we've burst their bubble, they've lost all composure.

I can see your point about NZ playing SA rather than Aus. As a neutral, however, I'd love to see a NZ-Australia semi.

I actually think France stand a good chance of knocking England out. I think a French team playing to no instructions is more dangerous than a French team playing to poor instructions. Even as an Englishman, I wouldn't be too sad about that. We've been playing terribly, and I think an earlier exit will force us to rebuild more thoroughly.

Referring back to the original article, it's interesting that all the experts picked SA to beat Australia. I know this was an interview for SA media, but still, I would have epected at least one to go the other way. It'll be a great match, no doubt.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:I actually think France stand a good chance of knocking England out.

So do I actually. I just can't believe that they'll play as bad as they did against Tonga. They just looked like they couldn't be bothered.

However nothing will stir the French passion like playing the English and the prospect of a SF against the pesky celts they love to beat.

I can see a totally different France turning up against England and if the English players take them lightly then they could be in trouble.

roddersm wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:I actually think France stand a good chance of knocking England out.

So do I actually. I just can't believe that they'll play as bad as they did against Tonga. They just looked like they couldn't be bothered.

However nothing will stir the French passion like playing the English and the prospect of a SF against the pesky celts they love to beat.

I can see a totally different France turning up against England and if the English players take them lightly then they could be in trouble.

the point is here- is that england will not take them lightly- because they now how good france are. There is way to much specualtion that france are no good- its tosh. England need to be on form, and so do france and i see both putting up an amazing game.

its not far of a 50/50 encounter, the talk from most(not english) is that england have it easy. That is simply not the case

roddersm wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:I actually think France stand a good chance of knocking England out.

So do I actually. I just can't believe that they'll play as bad as they did against Tonga. They just looked like they couldn't be bothered.

However nothing will stir the French passion like playing the English and the prospect of a SF against the pesky celts they love to beat.

I can see a totally different France turning up against England and if the English players take them lightly then they could be in trouble.

You could say exactly the same about England (pretty much). England are unlikely to play as poorly as they have done so far (yet still won) and the French games normally bring out a good performance from them. If England get a good start it could well go their way. I'm confident

biltongbek: I just think that SA are good at World Cups and dogging out wins. NZ still probably favourites, and on their day Aus can do pretty much anyone, but SA have a habit of being there when it counts.

Except against Scotland, of course...

nz are still massive favourites.

gone from 1.62-1.77 with the carter absense.(on betfair)

australia are second favs on 9.2!!

make no mistake who the favs are here-Have to remember that betting odds take into consdieration betting trends but are usually close to reality.

When you have 8 teams left and one is under evens- its telling you they are massive favs- make no mistake- a standard favourite with 8 teams/players left would be about 3 to 4pts

emack2 wrote:
IF McCaw stays fit enough,I still think they have a better chance than
any of the other teams JUST.
Without him it would still be possible,but no better than an evens bet.

Emack, couldn't NZ call up Waldrom if McCaw turns out to be injured?

I think what´s clear from these quarter finals is that nothing is clear, with the exception maybe of the Argentina NZ match. Some teams look better than others, some teams have fewer injuries, some teams have good results over the other in recent times. But really what a great tournament we have with such tight matches to call. This really is a dream tournament in terms of having the knockout phases so close to call.

I think Slade has to be played at flyhalf and Weepu put in at halfback. Cowan is in dire form and Ellis doesn´t convince me. What´s more, if we´re up with points on the board, Ted mustn´t empty the bench. We need our best players to play near to a game of 80 minutes. By all means make tactical decisions to replace players who look tired or put the likes of SBW in a place where you think you can attack. But don´t empty the bench. We can play 3 games in a row with our A team. We need continuity and we need time together. If Weepu goes in at flyhalf at half time and Slade goes off for Cowan, I´ll be most upset.

As for the winner of SA vs Australia, I like the idea better as well of SA. We know their game plan but Australia offer something that´s difficult to prepare for. Then again they have a pack that is able to be dominated like the dying moments of Brisbane when they remembered from Sydney what won them the match. In the end it matters little I guess. They both offer a lot of strengths and have the game to beat the ABs. But we also have a squad and home ground advantage that´s able to beat them.

The other side of the draw is a similar coin flip. So many ifs, so much doubt which ifs will become reality.

The only comment about that Biltong,was your defence versus NZ was splintered many times.In the first 20 minutes .THAT NZ team was as viable to the 3Ns as the Bok sides with 21 MIA.
I can`t call either of the 3 SH sides it`s that close,it always is the All Blacks have yet to get a settled team on the park.
That is there weakness,They have the forwards match any up front,the first choice back row lack nothing in comparison with any in the RWC.
The Loss of DC is so vast it`s un bridgable,but that does`nt mean the team
can`t still beat anyone.
The sadness for me is and this is no slight on any other team,I would have
loved an All Black vBoks final ,with an All Black victory of course.
With Dan Carter dropping the winning goal after extra time,romantic drivel
maybe but it would have been poetic justice.

KIA if Cowan is on the park at anytime,you have no chance whatsoever,his recent delivery is abysmal.
He should do the decent thing,pull a fetlock and get another SH in there
Brendan Leonard or Albie Mathewson.
If the selectors had been on the ball,the Samoan scrum half wanted to be an All Black.Just did`nt get the game time,familiar sounds from Crusaders players.

Poetic justice IMO would be Walsh not penalising France for 60 minutes, and them knocking England out via a blatantly forward pass, after Tindall had been unfairly sin-binned, England desperately struggling for a late DG with both Flood and Wilkinson injured. However, I'm prepared to accept that might just be my version of reality.

Agree with Kia on the 9/10 issue. I don't think Cowan did Slade any favours, and we never got to see him operate outside Weepu or Ellis.

Guildford's speed brings an edge that was missing and I also believe he has to start.

The selectors made the call to take Guildford and Slade and now they must stick to their guns. Indecision is contagious.

I am surprised that so many New Zealanders would rather play SA than OZ in the semi final.

Our history since the last world cup against NZ is significantly better than OZ.

It does`nt matter Biltong,all you can do is win the next 3 games whoever they are against.Then you are World Champions.

Well alan, what is written in the stars is written in the stars, good thing for the Boks, the more things change the more they stay the same.

That Garth Wright fella seems to have his head screwed on with those predictions - very astute fella

Speaking of predictions. Using the same system that allowed me to predict the Tongan upset of France, and got the score right to within a few points, I've taken a look at the finals.

To avoid spoiling the tournament for everyone, I'm going to start a new thread with "RWC Results - Spoiler" on it. So y'know don't look if you don't want to know.

lol gg, what you been chonging

biltongbek wrote:I am surprised that so many New Zealanders would rather play SA than OZ in the semi final.

Our history since the last world cup against NZ is significantly better than OZ.

Its the unknowns Biltong. We know what SA are capable of and can plan for a strategy for it. It will either work for us or it won't. With Oz they're like France- chalk and cheese from week to week. Not saying Oz are necessarily better than SA- they certainly arent at times, but potentially they're better than anyone in the one match. Its not disrespect to SA, its just a greater weariness of the Oz x factor, and we've been struck down by that before.

us from the nh dont really see that in oz.

Clearly why they beat you so often...

mystiroakey wrote:second most likely scenario after a nz eng final would be a nz v france final, then a nz v ireland final, then an eng v sa final.

I think NZ are gonna really show there worth, and i really cannot see how there team is so realiant on carter. Its like a spain without a xavi, not a portugal without ronaldo or england without a rooney.

I give you kiwi fans stick because you seem like a bunch of whingers, but your team is surely to good. Your ranking is so high, your wins against minnows are allways so good. You also destroyed france- many people say it was france that imploded- from my point of view there was nothing they could do, and against tonga they only did what was neccesary, they still got through. France still have a chnage at getting to the final. and we then basically will have a repeat of last years wc- with france and nz over eng and sa(sa pumled england in the groups) which is why many dont understand how we got to the final

i think their campaign has been built on 2 foundations, one of which has crumbled and the other is also showing cracks....with no Carter and a crocked McCaw they are just like any other side and in my view their cloak of invincibilty has gone. The Boks will stop them.

The GreyGhost - I haven't forgotten your Tongan forecast mate and I'll take my hat off to you on a great prediction - calculated of course You've got a great rugby brain and I enjoy the vast majority of your informed posts. Just enjoy the banter from time to time

What's with this cloak of invincibility rubbish? No team has it. Invincibility means you don't lose. 97 was the last year NZ went unbeaten-and the 75% test win ratio is still 3 out of 4. Play 14 tests and that's 3-4 losses. Build NZ up and then call them arrogant go for it. Just realise the irony in that.

who is calling them invincible- there are very far from it - but still they are massive favourites, best team, best ranking, worse than evens in the betting stakes(that is very rare with so many teams left), tyhey are at home.

there biggest problem is offcourse the feeling that they may choke as they have done time and time before!- if they hadnt there odds would be even worse value!

C'mon Oakey - there's choking and then there's the GRAND SLAM 2011 dvd

Theres allways the 2003 world cup dvd i can turn to offcourse.

I think i have a slide show from when the kiwis won the thing, actually maybe i have a betamax

Well atleast this time NZ will have a tangible excuse and for the next 4 years we will have to listen to ...we would have won it if DC was playing

Its a good thing SA are going into this as the clear underdogs, non-existent attack,porous defence,not as good as other teams at the breakdown,predictable and old . Afterall when has being clear favourites ever worked for anyone at the world cup

Watched Scrum V earlier, and someone (can't remember who, had a few drinks ) said that SA had one of the best attacking styles in the game. Not often you hear that, but I don't think it's wrong.

mystiroakey wrote: us from the nh dont really see that in oz.

Thats right misty so youre commenting on our point of view from your experience with Oz.

Besides, France got a good taste of it last year. Whens the last time one of yours put 50 on France- if ever?

Consistency isnt the Oz trademark we know but no one on the day turns it on better than when that group of 6 is playing. Their ablity to score tries from the sniff of an oily rag is unmatched.

This from supporters of a team that almost never lose to your lot so I think we are in a better place to compare, given we usually beat both.

Yeah it's funny how England just don't rate Australia when the two teams that face them the most, and coincidentally those with the two best records in history, really do. England have a good record against them in Cups, and it's really good that you're confident against them, but SA and NZ see a lot of English's view of them as arrogant as both generally rate Australia as a better team.

what are you going on about- we dont see australia as being the threat that we feel SA and NZ are. Thats just down to the fact that england have dominated them in the last two games, ireland just bust thjem on the biggest stage , and we respect SA massively- esp as they are world champs.

stop being such an arrogant toad taylorman

"but SA and NZ see a lot of English's view of them as arrogant as both generally rate Australia as a better team."

look pal its not our fault that we have a better recent cup recoird against them and that we rate sa and nz more- just takeait as a flaming compliment and stop the crazy talk. If you have a history of winning against a team you dont feel the threat for obvious reasons. ITS NATURAL

"Yeah it's funny how England just don't rate Australia

just to point out that that statemnet is rubbish- we just rate SA and NZ higher(well i do anyway)

i feel as though its the kiwi fans that have the issue with it more than anything else, you seem to feel pesecuted for some odd reason when we rate SA over AUS, just because you rate AUS over SA.

the simple truth is that rugby union is a game about conflicting styles- not so much inconsitancy.

just look at the ireland, england, france thing.

ireland>england
england>france
france>ireland

Most NH supporters deep down know we arnt quite as good as any of your 3 teams, but most of us feel as though we have more chance against aus than any other.

Taylorman wrote:Hi otagolad. I see you have taken some time out to so the world cup thing. Last time i caught your posts you were sipping wine over the atlantic on your way here.

Your comments above are similar to my thoughts but in the cases of NZ and SA youre much more convinced about both.

With NZ I also believe we have the best team for the title but for past results and other bits and pieces i stop short of stating that confidence.

Same with SA. I agree they do look bereft of ideas and rely on an age old gameplan but they do have some very good players individually and are defending their title.

The world cup knockouts as we know are a different beast and whether we admit or not NZ teams have for a reason as yet not clearly understood managed to find ways of underperforming in key matches.

The home advantage at eden park is the biggest factor in our favour but you sure have a confidence not many kiwis would admit as easily.

Hi TM,

Back in NZ and working, although I made sure that my new firm gave me any time off that I needed for the RWC so all sweet. As to why I'm so positive, I think there are a number of factors:

1. I lived for the past 5 years in the Caribbean and was swamped with US sports and they are hardly ever negative towards teams and players and concentrate far more on the positives and I guess I've become more like that myself - NZ still has the tall poppy glass is half empty approach to life and that is taking some getting used to again.

2. I genuinely believe that we have the best "team" and quite a large number of the world's best players in the AB's. Our Scrum is rock solid, our lineout is very good at the moment, our loosies are the best in the world, Weepu is serviceable at halfback, our centers and fullback are the best in the world and our wingers are right up there.

3. That leaves first five - Slade is class in my opinion and just needs to be left alone to run the backline his way. People have very quickly forgotten that he replaced Cruden in the test in Sydney last year and with some help from Kaino/Dagg took us from a losing position to a win and that it wasn't him that lost the test in SA this year (he actually played pretty well with guys around him he'd never really played with). People are very quick to jump all over Slade but have been prepared to let Carter have a lot of slack when he played badly (and fair enough to an extent as we all know that Carter can perform at the highest level) eg:

a) Carter against Aus at Eden Park this year kicked terribly and yet people only comment on how good he was defensively and game management wise. Take Slade against SA, Japan and Canada, and apart from his kicking, which were in terrible conditions, and which everyone is having issues with at this RWC, he has played pretty well, made great line breaks and his distribution and kicking from hand have been very good. He threw one low pass in the game against Canada and everyone jumps on this yet Weepu's passing was atrocious in that game when he came on.

b) Carter has regularly over the past year had a number of kicks charged down and yet barely mentioned and Slade has one and gets caned for it even though it was the result of some pretty poor service from Cowan and the Canadians living in our backline.

It seems to me that NZ'ers are looking for Slade to fail rather than getting behind a guy who is a very good (not Carter great but who is) player and who will attack the line and put our awesome backline on the front foot. What more do we want other than Carter back, which ain't happening.

4. Game Plan - I believe the AB's are one of the few teams, if the only one (Wales are close) that can play both a tough grinding forward exchange game and yet also play an open expansive game and switch between the two when needed - the return of Kieran Read is a huge positive as I understand from people close to the AB's that he makes a lot of the decesions during the game as McCaw is often at the bottom of Rucks etc.

5. Eden Park - a fortress and filled with Kiwis it should be a tough place for anyone to beat us at.

So overall I believe we as AB's supporters have quite a lot to be positive about and hey if we don't win it there's always next time - it's only a game after all and as I'm now living in Chch and can see the aftermath of the devasting earthquakes (physically, financially and personally) it puts everything in perspective - I'll still go nuts if we win though

PS - By the way, heard on Sports Radio this morning that the IRB censured the Sky TV crew here in NZ for showing the English guy proposing to his girlfriend at the England v Scotland game - Richard "Pod" Turner was on the show and he said he was sideline commentating and he kept asking the guy whether he had heard from his girlfriend and when he said he had and she had said yes Turner in his commentary passed that on to the viewing audience and received a few minutes later a text from the IRB that there were to be no more marriage proposals shown and that were only allowed to show the rugby. The IRB are becoming less and less popular down this way with their draconian, it's all about the money attitude.

Well Otagolad, can't say I don't admire your optimism. Refreshing since we kiwi's are mostly being reserved about the whole thing even though the most likeliest outcome is an AB win.

Can't even say I disagree with you in any of the points 1-6 though others will, but who cares ay?

Well done and welcome home

mystiroakey wrote:

Most NH supporters deep down know we arnt quite as good as any of your 3 teams, but most of us feel as though we have more chance against aus than any other.

Fair enough mysti. I think its more a case of you not getting them at their best. Cos we have, and other than SA 2009, they're by far the best we have faced.

Taylorman wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Most NH supporters deep down know we arnt quite as good as any of your 3 teams, but most of us feel as though we have more chance against aus than any other.

Fair enough mysti. I think its more a case of you not getting them at their best. Cos we have, and other than SA 2009, they're by far the best we have faced.

Think people are going to underestimate the World champions and get the shock of their lives. I'm leaving the boards, the constant talk is getting tedious so see you all sunday afternoon

Taylorman wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Most NH supporters deep down know we arnt quite as good as any of your 3 teams, but most of us feel as though we have more chance against aus than any other.

Fair enough mysti. I think its more a case of you not getting them at their best. Cos we have, and other than SA 2009, they're by far the best we have faced.

I think the thing with Aus is that although they have been inconsistent under Deans they have generally given us a very tough ride in the games we have played against them - this is the old problem that the AB's face which is that if there is one team that other teams can get up for it is the AB's.

Also I think we see a little of ourselves in the running game the Aussies employ and although we admire that it makes us Sh1t scared as we also know that style of play could take us apart (hence why kiwis fear the French) - in fact it is most probably fair to say that Aus are the new France inn world rugby, albeit without a forward pack

All the teams left in deserve respect,Aus V NZ ,2 wins out of the last 12
difficult to judge.
Brisbane especially losing two key back rowers after about 20 mins,completely changed the match.
The Aussies had a plan,ambushed the All Blacks and had too big a lead to pull back.
People said they did`nt see much of McCaw then on the contrary he was trying to play for the whole back row.
The last true form guide was 3Ns 2010 and the last 3 games BOTH Aus,and Boks nearly won there games.
In this day and age the video analysts of all sides are looking at there opponents last match probing for weaknesses.
BUT you don`t have to worry about the other side.impose your game on THEM.
Pointless thinking we can`t win,be like Ireland get stuck in and the devil take the hindmost.

True Alan,
I'm just gonna be damned with it all and go with Otagolads take- 5 years in the Caribbeans gotta goive you a fresh perspective!

Just go full on with the AB's. No reason we can't win them all. Carter or not.

Taylorman wrote:True Alan,
I'm just gonna be damned with it all and go with Otagolads take- 5 years in the Caribbeans gotta goive you a fresh perspective!

Just go full on with the AB's. No reason we can't win them all. Carter or not.

That's the spirit - GO THE AB's

Yep.

disneychilly wrote:Yeah it's funny how England just don't rate Australia when the two teams that face them the most, and coincidentally those with the two best records in history, really do. England have a good record against them in Cups, and it's really good that you're confident against them, but SA and NZ see a lot of English's view of them as arrogant as both generally rate Australia as a better team.

I don't think it's arrogance. It's simply that, for England, Australia are the most beatable of the tri-nations teams. England look at Australia and see an area where they can dominate. I don't think the same holds for NZ or SA. It's like the old boxing adage 'styles make fights.'

Taylorman wrote:True Alan,
I'm just gonna be damned with it all and go with Otagolads take- 5 years in the Caribbeans gotta goive you a fresh perspective!

Just go full on with the AB's. No reason we can't win them all. Carter or not.

good to see some emotion from you at last. you have been a little serious over these past few weeks, perhaps just a little stressed about the BIG GREEN MACHINE?

I can definitely see that-just the exaggeration seen on some of these boards and in some papers lends itself to arrogance. Was a cracker England played against them in November and the Poms were truly dominant then, but the word dominant has been used too much from some people. Like looking at the score of England's WC triumphs-yes the forwards were dominant and the win deserved but they were nailbiters. If I'm not mistaken the biggest victory margin was 3 points-95 and 03, and had Mortlock's kick gone over England would've gone out in 07.

Agree with Beadle on the styles thing. SA have the style to be awkward for NZ and Aussie can match us going toe to toe in an expansive game. NZ are strong playing whatever style which results in their impressive record.

Fact is if Aussie get 40% forward parity they generally win. England's pack has annihilated them enough to ensure they didn't even get that in the past.

The big green machine I'm worried about at present is the Irish one.

...who would play in away strip if it's an Ireland SA final?

I like our white strip, Ireland will need all the help they can get.