Group of Death...

First topic message reminder :

Pool A was/had to have a Top 4 side in there.

But who do you think are the most unhappiest with regard the fact that both England and Wales are in the same group with Australia.

Personally, I think it may be England. I know it is a long way off, but England will know that Wales can as easily beat them as they can beat Wales. It's simply down to the fact that they play each other every year in the 6 Nations. There will be nothing in it, barring any major injuries before the game.

Australia, being a top 4, was always going to get a team capable of beating them, but they must be a little annoyed to get both England and Wales in the same group, as it does give them a challenge, where either of the teams could beat them. England with the better recent record against them, but Wales although losing haven't been miles away.

As for Wales, as I said earlier, the fact the AI where a complete disaster has meant they have been resound to the fact that they where going to have a tough group. I also think, they may have preferred being in with Ireland and France as they play them year in year out, and have the belief they can beat them, but with that not the case, I think the group with England is more preferential than getting a Top 4 with either Argentina or Samoa, both teams which prove to be Welsh banana skins.

So to go back to my point. I think England are secretly more upset with the draw than Wales. Its their World Cup in 2015 (hosts that is) and face two teams who they lose to as often as the win against.

What's your thoughts...

mystiroakey wrote:Mikey you are talking on the lines that aus have allready qualified..

Its not just about dem pal...

True. I do back them in a RWC ahead of most teams, especially teams from the NH. I did also say I would love and much prefer the Wallabies to lose to England and Wales. It is our joint tournament afterall .

Nevermind who is going to be afraid of who.

Nobody outside those three really cares. The REAL question is which side the rest of us from other groups would like to see emerge - or more accurately, which side we'd prefer to see dropped.


Hmmm........... I know my choice.

Fly

You wouldn't want to meet Wales again would you?

Good guess but wrong answer there, bluesman.....

I don't think so...

Bluesman, you claim to know my mind better than I know it myself?!

Hmmm...this calls for another Mystiroakey joke allusion to video analysis proof....!

Oh dear fly, thought you were better than that, don't make me point you on a childs timeout too...

Wheres the supernanny smiley when you need it!

Close

Smoke and mirrors

I feel warm in side.. Yet very emotional

I must call my Mum

thebluesmancometh wrote:Oh dear fly, thought you were better than that, don't make me point you on a childs timeout too...

Wheres the supernanny smiley when you need it!

You and Mystiroakey enjoy the time-outs, the boycotts, the virus jokes and what-not, blues. But I'll just continue to handle my own mind if, of course,you don't....mind.

Mysti with respect one win from 3 is NOT a hairs breadth in a RWC by ANY means.As the Media would be crowing about it from the rooftops IF England had managed it.
Ask France with a record of nought from 3 if thats a comfort.Whenever the ABs are referred to as RWC holders it hits my cringe reflex.
Far rather they were called RWC Chokers and they keep on winning every thing between RWCs.As they`ve done pretty well since 1987 with the odd glitch in between.

emack2 wrote:Mysti with respect one win from 3 is NOT a hairs breadth in a RWC by ANY means.As the Media would be crowing about it from the rooftops IF England had managed it.
Ask France with a record of nought from 3 if thats a comfort.Whenever the ABs are referred to as RWC holders it hits my cringe reflex.
Far rather they were called RWC Chokers and they keep on winning every thing between RWCs.As they`ve done pretty well since 1987 with the odd glitch in between.

So it'd be a come-down for them to win everything mostly... everything between WC and WCs themselves? Man, you're what I'd call a Gold Standard, Premium Rate chooser.

so i take it that england are in a little group on there own miles behind SA,AUS and NZ, but miles ahead of france who is clearly in the same place as every other team


well then if there is such a gap between wc winners and non winners- why do we have this aragument- clearly by your rational aus and england are through allready macky!

Wales arent too concerned, as host nation all the pressure is on england.

besides wales are always in the group of death.

Hell we had newzealand and ireland in 1995.

south africa, samoa and fiji last time out.

australia, samoa and argentina in 1991 etc.

were used to it!

Hell Shifty! You think you're bad. In '86 we had New Zealand, South Africa and Australia in our group!!!!!!!!!!! Now that's a real group of death.

Well now the fact is we dont know what is the truely hardest group yet anyway! because its 3 years away. However the groups are what they are- they may seem hard but if wales are 9th in the world thats life- In 86 that group clearly wasnt as hard as it sounds today either!

SecretFly wrote:Hell Shifty! You think you're bad. In '86 we had New Zealand, South Africa and Australia in our group!!!!!!!!!!! Now that's a real group of death.

Eh? 1986? the cup didnt start until 1987 and south africa werent in the first one!

Naughty fly- i even belived him for a second!!

btw that means SA are possibly the best WC side..

..oh I mean that was the secret behind-closed-doors trial run of a WC pool to see how it would work.

Anyway, needless to say, we topped the group. So they said they'd have to divide the rest of them into different pools from there on to give them a better chance.

I don't think Wales will be particularly concerned about this draw in particular, but only because they were always going to have it tough seeded third. I'd say Australia got the worst deal on paper, getting the current strongest sides in both pots 2 and 3, whereas it could have been worse for England and Wales if NZ had been drawn in pot 1.

No Secret fly,it would`nt bother me if the All Blacks had NEVER won a RWC.As long as they keep there 75plus % win record from 1905.
IF you read my posts ALL AB matches count for me not just a Competion once every 4 years.

ok emack answer this.

honestly please

2015 world cup win- lose everything else that year

or win every game bar the wc final?

emack2 wrote:No Secret fly,it would`nt bother me if the All Blacks had NEVER won a RWC.As long as they keep there 75plus % win record from 1905.
IF you read my posts ALL AB matches count for me not just a Competion once every 4 years.

Oh I read a few of your posts, emack. That's why I actually made comment, because I thought I saw a little trend in the things you've said recently. I thought your idea was that you'd prefer that the ABs just stayed Number 1 ranked side and sustained their energies in the Championship rather than 'sacrificing' the Championship to prepare for a WC?

That's what I thought your ideal was. I just feel do the ABs, of all sides, really have to make the choice of 'either/or'? Trying to win every game, whilst still perhaps experimenting a little for upcoming WCs, would appear to me to be not too much of a strain for the ABs. A risk of sorts yes... but they're a little better than an 'either/or' side.

Mysti no question win everything but not a RWC Final,yes i`d take that it has been more or less the norm.Certainly since 1987 with the honourable exceptions 1998,2004,and 2010.I do not except the 2 England victories from this 2002 was down to Carlos Spencers lousy goalkicking.2003 twickenham England beat an AB side with 21 first choice players left at home by 2 points..
Lose every thing and win a RWC no would`nt be happy with that but either/ or
is an unlikely scenario.

ermmmmm... I reakon england just beat you boys up..

I was refering to years not one off matches or two off matches the ABs 2002-3 were VERY Close to England.
I`ve often wondered what would have happened if they had met final 2003,they did`nt so it was academic.
Last Saturday was a great England win I don`t deny it now hopefully they can build on it.Lancaster is the type to keep there feet on the ground.
As to the All Blacks it got the" we are the greatest crap out of the way"won`t
do any harm long term.I expect they will manage to scrape the odd win or 2 in 2013.

I have a feeling you might get the odd victory in 2013 as well Emack. I know i am pushing it but hey!!!....!!!

Its a hell of a group thats for sure and to echo those before, its still too early for this. The only advantage for any team right now is for England given that they will have some amazing home support.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Wales have to be unhappiest, with missing out Samoa and Argentina.

IMO if the group were played tomorrow I think it would go...

Aus v England 50/50
Wales v England 50/50
Aus v Wales 90/10 Aus

Realistically there could be a scenario where all 3 teams had 2 wins each, and Wales would definately be the one to miss out on try/points!!

Gland it's years away!!!

Weren't we top points scorer at RWC 2011, Blues? Why are you so pessimistic about Aus? Are you falling back on the Law of Sod. Of course you can't make a reasonable prediction but look on the bright side ffs

I think Australia have most to be concerned about I think.

England and Wales will have massive home support....of course the fact that they beat both this Autumn might provide them some comfort about the draw.....

rodders wrote:I think Australia have most to be concerned about I think.

England and Wales will have massive home support....of course the fact that they beat both this Autumn might provide them some comfort about the draw.....

Or the fact they just squeaked past Wales (again) might have them waking up in the night screaming!

Dontherman

Right now we are the masters of near misses, we can really just lose games in the last few minutes like the best!!!

Of all the sides injury hit this season Australia has probably been the worst hit.
They now have a solid if unspectacular Scrum,with Horwill back a good lineout.
With Pocock and the new flanker they have as always an outstanding back row.
Behind with O`Connor,Quade Cooper and Will Genia one of the best back divisions in the World.Plus they have now 2 World class goal kickers in Barnes and Harris plus Beale as back up something that was notably lacking.The 4Ns
methinks will be a lot closer next year with Oz and SA neare full strength,not to mention a few AB`s .
Just a thought Kaino back at 6,and Kahui/SBW at 12/13 in 2015 would you bet against it?

Alan, most injury hit, I think it is a toss up between SA and Oz.

From the start kf the season, 1st choice players injured (in tests and super xv)layers that missed 3 tests or more.


Schalk Burger
Bismarck du Plessis
Pierre Spies
Andries Bekker
Johan Goosen
JP Pietersen
Bryan Habana
Frans Steyn
Beast Mtwarira