Ben Darwin Tips Ireland for a World Cup Final spot

http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/05/12/predicting-2015-rugby-world-cup-bracket/

Darwin works through the results one by one to see how the World Cup groups might work out, and he ends up with the Irish meeting New Zealand in the final, with the All Blacks winning. It's not the conclusion he would have expected from a top down approach. mind you.

It hinges on Ireland winning their group, and then beating Argentina in the quarters (he thinks they'll be 2nd in their group). Darwin thinks England will win their group, then face and beat Scotland and end up meeting Ireland in a semi. he tips Ireland to win, saying they were unlucky not to do so in the 6 Nations.

I haven't really thought about the permutations but it's interesting to see that Ireland could make the final without requiring any outlandish results by their current record.

I like Ben Darwin.

I wonder how he came to the conclusion that Ireland were 'unlucky' against England? England deserved their win and were the better team!.

He seems a top bloke indeed Laurie.

Nice of him to say we only need Mike Brown on the pitch to beat the Aussies!

Out of the 5 teams that I think have a realistic chance of getting to the RWC from that side I would say the odds are the following.

England
Australia
France
Ireland
Wales

However the diff between 1 and 5 is small... very small.

Anyone of those 5 can given the right circumstances and luck.... get to that final.

Ireland will probably give you the most return from a betting standpoint/genuine chance of coming true.

One thing I would say is that England have had 2 armwrestles with them of late home and away and won both.
Ireland had the upper hand this year upfront but England missed Cole & Corbisiero... had they been fit I think it would have been a different game. I think Ireland will have to improve significantly to reach the final without relying on luck/win agains the run of play etc.

The BOD factor is an unknown. Play wise I don't think it will now be too difficult to replace, the impact of a senior player such as him though I think will leave big shoes to fill... and come the pressure moments, players like that count.

I think England have been building for so long now, they have weathered the storm of transition and now have the look of a side that's peaking at the right time and could definately be contesting another RWC final. I reckon they will be there or there abouts.
Ireland will hopefully by then have learned the Schmidt way and will be a better force to reckon with. We are improving and will be a different side come RWC time I know that. I also think we have great depth and quality of depth like we've never seen before. Losing BOD can't be allowed to play on the minds of the squad, I'm sure he'll be there behind the scenes driving them on.

As for Ireland in the final? I can't see it but then again there's no reason why we can't go all the way and lift the trophy. I won't be betting on it though.

to beat England, Australia, France or Wales is one thing.

to beat NZ or SA is another.

There is a reason why only 4 teams have ever won the trophy and why only 5 have ever contested finals.

fa0019 wrote:to beat England, Australia, France or Wales is one thing.

to beat NZ or SA is another.

There is a reason why only 4 teams have ever won the trophy and why only 5 have ever contested finals.

Birthright?

There have only been 7 of them. The Rugby World Cup is still a baby, with no teeth and unable to walk yet. It's still in the gooing and gobbing-green-stuff-over-your-shoulder stage.

Four different sides winning a competition that has only been held seven times is not such a powerful stat that fully deserves the respect you seem to drop on it, fa0019.

The world is young and our present will soon enough be old old history, vaguely remembered by our great grandkids.

I think Ireland have a really brilliant chance in the World Cup to get to a semi-final without having to play New Zealand, England, Australia or South Africa.

Once you're in the semi-final, who knows what can happen? The draw is quite favourable for Ireland so if we can avoid slipping up in the pool stages the potential is there to have a good run. We should be targeting four wins in the pool stages. It's no foregone conclusion that we'll manage to get them but there is an opportunity there.

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:to beat England, Australia, France or Wales is one thing.

to beat NZ or SA is another.

There is a reason why only 4 teams have ever won the trophy and why only 5 have ever contested finals.

Birthright?

There have only been 7 of them.  The Rugby World Cup is still a baby, with no teeth and unable to walk yet.  It's still in the gooing and gobbing-green-stuff-over-your-shoulder stage.

Four different sides winning a competition that has only been held seven times is not such a powerful stat that fully deserves the respect you seem to drop on it, fa0019.

The world is young and our present will soon enough be old old history, vaguely remembered by our great grandkids.

Fly

the football world cup has been held 19 times over the last 80 years and has only been won by 8 teams... in a far more competitive sport with 2 new winners coming in the last 4 cups.

in 50 years time I would be surprised if there was any other team bar France added to that trophy.

For Wales or Ireland to win the trophy (the only others I could potentially see)... they would have to beat most probably 3 of the big 5 nations (3N + FRA & ENG) in consecutive matches.

That would be an enormous task... and far more difficult than for teams like NZ etc as at least they don't need to face themselves.

Wales were at their peak in the 70s.... yet during that time they never beat NZ nor SA. Ireland have never beaten NZ and outside of the middle of the 00s their spell against the boks has been pretty barren.

Can they beat them in one off games, yes I believe they can... any team inc. NZ.

Can they beat 3 of them in successive weeks? Unlikely as much as I would love it to happen.

England now have player numbers well over 1MM, SA over 750k... those 2 are likely to lead into the future as demographics and funding don't lie... the rest are simply going to swim against the tide. Teams like England can play the numbers card and throw more money onto those players... in the long run how can smaller nations compete?

This Ireland team looks pretty decent, they can get to the final with the right conditions but we've seen it before... teams in the past have had 5-6 genuine world class players involved, take Fiji or Argentina in 07 for instance... but SA has 10+, NZ near every man... and that will occur in nearly every world cup cycle. How likely is it that a team like Wales or Ireland will get genuine world class players in every position, all fit for a six week period.... its so unlikely they all come together that the odds will always be stacked in the major sides favour.

If Wales or Ireland do manage to win the RWC and do it by beating at least 2 members of the big 5 it will go down as the greatest achievement in rugby for sure.

I agree that if Ireland win their group they have a very good chance of reaching the semis. I've no idea why Darwin thinks Ireland were 'unlucky' against England in the 6 Nations though.

Rugby Fan wrote:Darwin thinks England will win their group, then face and beat Scotland and end up meeting Ireland in a semi. he tips Ireland to win, saying they were unlucky not to do so in the 6 Nations.

fa0019, Oh I know all the details and analyses but it just seems to be the 'reasoning' in some circles that : "If you haven't already won it then it's best not to waste time dreaming of winning it"

That to me is counter-intuitive to the way the world works and counter-clockwise to why we have these competitions in the first place.  
When I was a kid nobody would have contemplated little (or tall!) Jamaicans running continuously faster than college trained, scientifically created and picked athletes from bigger, richer, more populous nations.

Munster would have never won a HEC based on the principle of how many class players it could throw at and sustain through that competition in the earliest days either

Life happens.  Records move on.  Spheres of influence change.  America is even losing it's world policeman role bit by bit.  Another thing that would never have been contemplated when I was growing up!

For the record, I'd never be one to suggest Ireland will be in a final with New Zealand... for reasons of my own that lend themselves to not chirping too loudly about any personal hopes.  But would it shock me if they were there?  Would I be dumbfounded?  Nope.

Ireland might not be in a final.  But hopefully they'll play all their games with the serious intention of being so.  The rest of it will be with the gods.

Cyril wrote:I agree that if Ireland win their group they have a very good chance of reaching the semis. I've no idea why Darwin thinks Ireland were 'unlucky' against England in the 6 Nations though.

Rugby Fan wrote:Darwin thinks England will win their group, then face and beat Scotland and end up meeting Ireland in a semi. he tips Ireland to win, saying they were unlucky not to do so in the 6 Nations.

Perhaps the fact that it was such a tightly contested game right up until the final whistle with the eventual winner never being a certainty. One superb try each and the rest down to the boot. It was a match that either side could have won right to the death so to lose such a game can always be seen as unlucky.

Cyril wrote:I agree that if Ireland win their group they have a very good chance of reaching the semis. I've no idea why Darwin thinks Ireland were 'unlucky' against England in the 6 Nations though.

We were unlucky, Cyril. We didn't win. That to me is always emotively an unlucky moment of week long gloom

Pete330v2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:I agree that if Ireland win their group they have a very good chance of reaching the semis. I've no idea why Darwin thinks Ireland were 'unlucky' against England in the 6 Nations though.

Rugby Fan wrote:Darwin thinks England will win their group, then face and beat Scotland and end up meeting Ireland in a semi. he tips Ireland to win, saying they were unlucky not to do so in the 6 Nations.

Perhaps the fact that it was such a tightly contested game right up until the final whistle with the eventual winner never being a certainty. One superb try each and the rest down to the boot. It was a match that either side could have won right to the death so to lose such a game can always be seen as unlucky.

I'm not sure I go for 'lucky' or 'unlucky' when one side edges out the other in a tight contest.

It certainly won't shock me if any of the 5 major teams in that side of the pool get to the final. The best team at the time will get through... who that will be is guess work at best.

When I saw what England had to do to win the RWC 03 ingrained in me that it was a near impossible to repeat feat... the team was so dominant at the time, 12 matches vs. the 3N unbeaten home and away. Every player a world class individual and few injuries to their first XV... yet they just scrapped by... a bit like NZ in 2011 too.

Stranger things have happened I'm sure anyhow.

fa0019 wrote:It certainly won't shock me if any of the 5 major teams in that side of the pool get to the final. The best team at the time will get through... who that will be is guess work at best.

When I saw what England had to do to win the RWC 03 ingrained in me that it was a near impossible to repeat feat... the team was so dominant at the time, 12 matches vs. the 3N unbeaten home and away. Every player a world class individual and few injuries to their first XV... yet they just scrapped by... a bit like NZ in 2011 too.

Stranger things have happened I'm sure anyhow.

England probably peaked a bit early (2002) but still had enough experience, belief and sheer bloody-mindedness to get over the line in 2003.

It'll certainly be difficult because no other NH side (in the World Cup era) has come anywhere near the level of that England side. Mind you, England somehow reached the final in 2007 and came within a whisker of retaining the cup. They were a bit 'unlucky' in the final

Hi guys, new to this board, (posting) but have been following since the old BBC 606 and enjoy following the discussions and thought it was time I contributed a little.
First off the Eng -Ire game was a fantastic game and was just about the right result in my opinion. I think both England and Ireland are on an upward curve and next year I think both will do well.
As for the big 5 I take it you are referring to The 3 SH sides, England and France.
My take on it is firstly history is history especially the first few WC's. Wales and Ireland have won 5 of the last 7, 6 Nations titles and it is only a matter of time before either get to a final or win. the suggestion that that will not happen in 50 years is pretty short sighted. If Wales had kept 15 men on the field against France in the last WC then I think they would have won that game and that Welsh team were good enough to beat he NZ team that played the final that day.
I also think that the current Irish team is better than that of '09 and it will be stronger yet again next year. Under Kidney Ireland were one of the best one off teams. Remember Schmitt only had them for 2 Internationals before the NZ game. Its a game that got away as they were there for the taking.
Getting bak to the topic I saw this on a website last year. I don't think Ireland fear France as they did before '09. Their recent record is actually not that bad against the French. So if they can beat the French, (not saying it will be easy), and Italy they should win the pool. Then probably Argentina, (possibly Tonga but unlikely). Then a semi final against (I think England). Whilst England have a younger team and they have home advantage Ireland will have a lot of fire power to spoil the party. I fully expect Schmitt to have Ireland playing like he had Leinster playing from '09 -'12. He is that good of a coach. Because of a smaller pool of players they need some luck but if they have very few injuries they will have the ability to compete with any other team.
All that said my prediction is a SA/Eng final.

Unlucky, lucky, who cares. The point is that they are two very evenly matched teams and any game between them could go either way.

I think he's spot on, except I think SA will beat Australia and NZ to reach the final.

Ireland to win the final.

Good effort though Ben   .

Overall pretty pointless this far out though.

So you think NZ will crash out again, ninja?  Who will be their stumbling block this time?

I suppose it will depend on who the refs are....

Well with my prediction, France will meet NZ in the 1/4 final with Wayne Barnes as the ref.
But I think SA will be very strong this time around and will knock them out. Again only my opinion.

I still think it will be either:

NZ-Eng
NZ-Aus
NZ-SA
SA-Aus

Of course Ireland has a good chance for a shot at it as well... v NZ, Eng or SA according to my possible permutations.

Average age of world cup winners is approximately 28.1 years meaning this one is a 3 horse race between NZ, SA and Ireland, with the latter being a shoe in for the final.

With Paddy Jackson kicking a drop goal from 45m to win the game on 82 min.

Well I was thinking Mike Ross outsprinting Pieterson to score in the corner but it could play out that way too I suppose...

I think unless SA get a scalp vs. NZ this year it will be too difficult to beat them in the SF in 2015. Its the mentality issue, its a one off game sure but if they go into the RWC season with a win lose record of 0-6 vs. NZ then their will be nothing to take comfort from. No joy will come from a token victory in that years RC at home when NZ send another 2nd team.

Last time they won was in 2011 when NZ also sent a 2nd team to SA during the 3N as they wanted to rest their bigtime players before the RWC.

The boks will have to do it the hard way again... away leg first (near impossible task) and then they will be chasing the championship in the final game (which makes it all the more difficult).
Meyer will have to pull one out the bag no matter how talented his side is.

Beat France to win group and then play Argentina they will likely face Wales in the semi…..so no way will irleand make the final

So Wales (likely) to beat England, Australia, then Scotland or Samoa next and then definitly beat Ireland in the semi's? Bold statement.
I predicted Ireland to win their group as their recent form against France is very decent and Italy will be a very tough game as always but is very winnable. Schmitt will leave nothing to chance and will not make the same mistakes as Kidney/O Sullivan.
Big statement saying Wales will get to the final considering the company they will be in.

Ninjarugby wrote:So Wales (likely) to beat England, Australia, then Scotland or Samoa next and then definitly beat Ireland in the semi's? Bold statement.
I predicted Ireland to win their group as their recent form against France is very decent and Italy will be a very tough game as always but is very winnable. Schmitt will leave nothing to chance and will not make the same mistakes as Kidney/O Sullivan.
Big statement saying Wales will get to the final considering the company they will be in.

Wow you really are a ninja, not going to slip my bold prediction past you am I!  

Scratch, maybe you could explain how Wales will improve on their drubbing by Ireland in the last 6Ns to back up your claim?

Fair enough they might, but you give Ireland 'no chance'.

As FHF might say, 'a little bit more meat on the bone laddie'

Based on that no team would ever beat anyone they just lost to would they

Wales have beaten Ireland on numerous occasions in the last few years and notably in the last RWC. Schmidt has his sh!t together no doubt, but Ireland Wales at RWC is definitely in Wales favor because if the fixture happens, they will have beaten England and Aus on the way while Ireland will have only been tested by France to win the group likely facing a 1/4 v Argentina who, everyone knows are on the wane.

Group A is the group of death, there is no doubt. To qualify will be hard enough but to win and avoid SA in the 1/4 is everything.

Ah, ok.

Fair enough pal

It's all crazy permuations (like Darwin did).

NZ, followed surprisingly closely by SA and England are overwhelming favourites for this RWC with Australia and Ireland the dark horses lurking in the shadows.....

No one else need apply. Sorry.

I still think Wales have the potential to be in the mix if they can keep all their players fit and on form and alter their strategy slightly to be a little less one dimesional (fine for England, France or Ireland) but not for AUS, SA or NZ.

You can't out muscle SA.

Can't in million years see Wales escaping their pool. Sorry Welsh fans - England and Australia look really strong and Welsh rugby is in disarray at the minute for me with really poor showings from the regions this year plus an ongoing player exodus to France,

Scratch wrote:Ireland Wales at RWC is definitely in Wales favor because if the fixture happens, they will have beaten England and Aus on the way

Not necessarily. England, Wales and Australia makes for three match-ups, and each team could win one and lose one. Assuming they beat the other sides in the group, the two qualifiers, and the order they qualify, will be based on bonus points, points difference or tries. Wales could meet Ireland on the back of a loss rather than an unbeaten run.

Whoever wins group A should have the momentum, confidance to get to the semi's as I can't see either Sco/Samoa stopping them. Whoever come 2nd will have a big ask against SA, (probable). If you were to take recent history in the WC wth home advantage to Eng, then Eng will be in the semi's with Australia to meet SA as a grudge match from last WC. That said if Gatland can get his squad to the same level as '11 then Group A will be a bloodbath. Either way it is the most facinating Group. In the other groups Samoa will target Scotland and Tinga will target Argentina. Depending on how Italy do in next years 6 Nations I think if they can beat either France or Ireland as they had in '13 they could cause an upset but they still need to prove themselves away from home.

Ill be putting a few quid on SA.

They just seem to always do well in the WC. Have a big physical side but also have a little bit of guile coming through.

No team will want to face them.

All the other teams yeah they all have strengths, but they're all beatable aswell...Wales, Ireland, England, France, Australia...dare i say even NZ dont look absolutely unbeatable as they have in recent years.

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

fa0019 wrote:to beat England, Australia, France or Wales is one thing.

to beat NZ or SA is another.

There is a reason why only 4 teams have ever won the trophy and why only 5 have ever contested finals.

Birthright?

There have only been 7 of them.  The Rugby World Cup is still a baby, with no teeth and unable to walk yet.  It's still in the gooing and gobbing-green-stuff-over-your-shoulder stage.

Four different sides winning a competition that has only been held seven times is not such a powerful stat that fully deserves the respect you seem to drop on it, fa0019.

The world is young and our present will soon enough be old old history, vaguely remembered by our great grandkids.

Fly

the football world cup has been held 19 times over the last 80 years and has only been won by 8 teams... in a far more competitive sport with 2 new winners coming in the last 4 cups.

in 50 years time I would be surprised if there was any other team bar France added to that trophy.

For Wales or Ireland to win the trophy (the only others I could potentially see)... they would have to beat most probably 3 of the big 5 nations (3N + FRA & ENG) in consecutive matches.

That would be an enormous task... and far more difficult than for teams like NZ etc as at least they don't need to face themselves.

Wales were at their peak in the 70s.... yet during that time they never beat NZ nor SA. Ireland have never beaten NZ and outside of the middle of the 00s their spell against the boks has been pretty barren.

Can they beat them in one off games, yes I believe they can... any team inc. NZ.

Can they beat 3 of them in successive weeks? Unlikely as much as I would love it to happen.

England now have player numbers well over 1MM, SA over 750k... those 2 are likely to lead into the future as demographics and funding don't lie... the rest are simply going to swim against the tide. Teams like England can play the numbers card and throw more money onto those players... in the long run how can smaller nations compete?

This Ireland team looks pretty decent, they can get to the final with the right conditions but we've seen it before... teams in the past have had 5-6 genuine world class players involved, take Fiji or Argentina in 07 for instance... but SA has 10+, NZ near every man... and that will occur in nearly every world cup cycle. How likely is it that a team like Wales or Ireland will get genuine world class players in every position, all fit for a six week period.... its so unlikely they all come together that the odds will always be stacked in the major sides favour.

If Wales or Ireland do manage to win the RWC and do it by beating at least 2 members of the big 5 it will go down as the greatest achievement in rugby for sure.

Do you think more than one in 50 people plays rugby in England? Honestly?

according to the annual report 2013 on the RFU website they have over 2.5MM participants in the game within clubs and schools. The figures I had previously seen was registered club players which is well in excess of 1MM.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Scratch wrote:Ireland Wales at RWC is definitely in Wales favor because if the fixture happens, they will have beaten England and Aus on the way

Not necessarily. England, Wales and Australia makes for three match-ups, and each team could win one and lose one. Assuming they beat the other sides in the group, the two qualifiers, and the order they qualify, will be based on bonus points, points difference or tries. Wales could meet Ireland on the back of a loss rather than an unbeaten run.

to win the group, highly unlikely.

People do bang on about player numbers but probably only about 0.01% in England have any aspirations to play professionally.

well their is a supply restriction meaning only a very talented few CAN become professionals.

Lets say their are 20 fully professional clubs out there and 35 players in a squad. Thats at best only 700 professional players at any one time.

In my time in the sport I've only known 1 or 2 chaps I've known who were good enough to become professional and didn't take it up citing other interests.

fa0019 wrote:
Lets say their are 20 fully professional clubs out there and 35 players in a squad. Thats at best only 700 professional players at any one time.

Sure Toulon and Racing metro have near 700 players on the payroll between them.

rodders wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
Lets say their are 20 fully professional clubs out there and 35 players in a squad. Thats at best only 700 professional players at any one time.

Sure Toulon and Racing metro have near 700 players on the payroll between them.

Perhaps they paid Claremont to intentionally lose in last years final too Can you imagine Nathan Hines & Jamie Cudmore being told to go easy???

Fa - I'm aware that there are limited pro positions available. I can only think of 3 recently capped England internationals who have come into the pro game from junior clubs.

Nick Easter - Old Alleynians.
Mauritz Botha - Bedford Athletic (via Bedford)
Joe Launchbury - Worthing.

Still, to the point under discussion. Ireland can do well at the RWC if they can cope with a game a week. Something I feel they havw struggled with in the past.

Hound of Harrow wrote:Fa - I'm aware that there are limited pro positions available. I can only think of 3 recently capped England internationals who have come into the pro game from junior clubs.

Nick Easter - Old Alleynians.
Maritz Botha - Bedford Athletic (via Bedford)
Joe Launchbury - Worthing.

Still, to the point under discussion. Ireland can do well at the RWC if they can cope with a game a week. Something I feel they havw struggled with in the past.

Joe Launchbury is a bit marginal don't you think?  Dropped by quins aged 18 and went to a club in the 4th tier of english rugby with strong links to the pro london clubs... getting probably more game time than had he stayed at quins and perhaps a higher standard than the development teams. Given he got capped less than 3 years later I think it wasn't a bad thing to have happened.

Its almost like it was pre-arranged.

However how quins didn't see his talent I don't know. Whoever passed him up should be fired.