Setting the benchmark and maintaining it

Every team is striving to achieve the impossible: the perfect game. If we look at the test matches last year, most teams are able to look back on matches with a quiet sense of satisfaction. Ireland vs Wales, NZ vs France in the second June test, England vs Ireland, SA in Australia. These games don't have to be close-to-perfect performances but reversing a trend like England vs Wales or overcoming an opponent that played equally well like NZ vs Ireland or SA.

When looking back at those standout performances, the temptation is to assign that performance as a benchmark. We played with this intensity or this level of accuracy or this flair. The problem with this way of thinking is that you cannot artificially create the environment that led to that performance. There are certain internal factors you can control but there are countless more external factors that change with every match.

England are the only team to beat NZ since 2011 RWC. They approached the game in 2013 against Wales that they had set the benchmark against NZ the previous year and that was the level they had to replicate against Wales. Similarly you could argue NZ reached their peak at Ellis Park in 2014 and desperately tried to match that intensity and performance in their remaining matches. It doesn't work that way, however. In terms of motivation, you can't extract the same amounts each game. You can't anticipate how well the opposition is going to play and you can't control the key moments of a game that can go in your favour or against it.

The NZ press have largely gone from dismissing the English to saying they're a shoe in for the 6N. Such thinking is as fraught with danger as thinking if England can press NZ all the way, then Australia and SA will have no problems with NZ. Different circumstances and different combinations present different challenges. Because A beat B does not mean B will lose to C who beat A. Australia beat NZ by ever decreasing margins last year but that does not mean that trend will continue this year.

Obviously teams prefer to win by large margins and small margins of defeat are easier to accept than large ones. But often instead of focusing on the next game in hand we spend too much time looking back on what we did right and thinking how we can eliminate what we did wrong. We can learn from our previous games but it's difficult to maintain high standards. For example, England have ably demonstrated the last few games that they can live with what the top team can throw at them and not crumble. That does not mean, however, that England can now live with any team in world rugby or NZ can overcome any team in world rugby. Momentum and confidence count for a lot but every game is unique and execution and intensity vary dramatically. But just because England have done well in NZ does not mean that they will automatically top their RWC group of death nor mean, similarly, NZ will overcome France in a hypothetical quarter final because NZ has lately been stronger and have achieved a higher benchmark.

It's a difficult balance for coaches to instill belief in their players and to remind them of the task at hand rather than focusing on what you have done well in the past. There are a good number of teams - England, Oz, Ireland, NZ and SA who are big contenders for the RWC and then there are teams like Argentina, Wales and France that are perfectly capable of putting a spanner in the works. In a knockout tournament, previous benchmarks don't matter. It's what you bring to each match on each given day. Knowing you are capable of a good performance can be inspiring but it is not a guarantee by any means. Form and results give a guide but
the reality is not so much you're only as good as your last game but, rather, you're only as good as your next game.

Looks like a 2 horse race for the RWC between England, SA and NZ with the latter 2 rapidly gaining ground on the former.

Ireland and Australia look best place to upset the apple cart, leading the dark horse pack ahead of France and Wales.

That's a 3-horse race rodders but races are not raced with so few horses and stallions can be made to look like donkeys and donkeys can metamorphose into imposing beasts. Things are never so clear cut otherwise beautiful people would only mate with beautiful people!

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:That's a 3-horse race rodders

Rodders do you work for Paddy Power? Get away out a that with the quick talkin' spiels to extract money from slow customers.

But yes...from here it looks like it's a four horse race between the three obvious ones:

New Zealand (why do we have to include them everytime?? Could we not drop them into the Amlin now that that contest is dead and buried)  
England - looking impressive on all fronts most especially in depth.  It just seems to be a stream of hopefuls they're unwrapping, but the system never stutters.  Lancaster just keeps pushing momentum and pace no matter who plays.
South Africa - fear is the word to use with those guys - dare I say it quietly, even moreso than the All Blacks.  They look punishingly good right now.

In with a realistic chance:

Australia
France.... don't believe all the hype all the time about their demise.  A player here, a player there, something to fight for (WC) and they could very well stumble and fall right into the Cup itself and drown in the glory.

So so chance of making the final.

Wales - Gatland is ending famous careers quicker than the Black Death now and he'll keep throwing off the oldies as long as he keeps losing.  So by the time the WC comes around it'll largely be an unknown box of tricks he's working with - and that's when he's at his most dangerous, when he's uncovering players nobody in the SH has heard of and making them work above their Pro12 paygrade.

Ireland - I believed for a few seconds but the truth comes home that O'Driscoll was a terribly selfish f**ker to leave us just when we needed him most.  No, he was right to go but the balance of Ireland is...................in the balance now because of that one man leaving.  We had two focal points in most Irish teams and those were BOD and POC.  POC is still there but finding life at Schmidt levels difficult to sustain at his age.  And BOD is gone.  Sexton and Heaslip look like they have the job of influence setters and we'll see if they make the grade sufficently.
I'll need a renewal of faith based on how we go against SA and Australia in the Autumn.  It'll have to me more than just defensive posturing and getting through, it'll have to be England V Ireland stuff - full on intensity.

I was more interested in SA and NZ rapidly gaining ground on England   

I hope that's supposed to mean pulling away from and not catching up to.

Ireland will top the group and beat England in the SF, whereas SA will upset NZ on the other side.

It's a no brainer - get down to Paddy Power.....

HammerofThunor wrote:I was more interested in SA and NZ rapidly gaining ground on England   

I hope that's supposed to mean pulling away from and not catching up to.

The heat must be getting to me.... former 2 gaining on latter...

rodders wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:I was more interested in SA and NZ rapidly gaining ground on England   

I hope that's supposed to mean pulling away from and not catching up to.

The heat must be getting to me.... former 2 gaining on latter...

It was a cracking post