The Truth About the Group of Death

As has been well publicised, the Rugby World Cup Pool stages are based on IRB World Rankings, albeit the rankings about 3 years since the tournament. As a result, there is one pool that, a year out from the tournament, hosts 2 teams in the top 4, 3 teams in the top 6 and 4 teams in the top 12. It is of course Pool A with hosts England (4th) and top seeds Australia (3rd) joined by Wales (6th), Fiji (11th) and a to-be-determined play-off winner.

It is a guarantee that at least one of England, Australia and Wales will not make the Quarter-Finals. It is not impossible that 2 will miss out.

But how much of a hindrance is being placed in the Group of Death? To examine this, I'll take a look at the history of the Group of Death.

In 1987 and 1991, there were 7 major rugby nations (the 5 Nations, Australia and New Zealand) and in 1995 they were joined by South Africa. With the game amateur, there were plenty of "walkover" victories in these years. In 1999, the quality of group stage games was diluted in 1999 with 5 pools of 4 and an odd play-off system. There were no groups worthy of the title in any of these 4 World Cups.

2003 World Cup

So we get to 2003 (apologies). The toughest group appeared to be Group A. Group A combined the hosts Australia, the Six Nations runners-up Ireland, and 1999 World Cup quarter-finalists Argentina. Argentina gave Australia a good work-out first up, before losing out to Ireland by a point (having played 4 games in a fortnight). Ireland in turn ran Australia within a point.

Australia dropped 2 points in their pool as they failed to take bonus points against Ireland and Argentina. However, they went on to beat a previously untested New Zealand (who had scored minimum 3 tries a game and won by a minimum of 16 points) by 12 points in the semi-final, before going all the way to the 100th minute of the final before missing out.

The four pool winners in 2003 went on to the semi-final, but the two pool winners who dropped points (and therefore were "tested"), went on to win their semi-finals by comfortable score lines.

2007 World Cup

Leading up to the 2007 World Cup, two teams dominated Northern Hemisphere Rugby and the Six Nations - France and Ireland. They were drawn together with Argentina in Pool D. Argentina (as said), missed out on the World Cup quarter-finals by the narrowest margin, but had some decent results in between Cups. In 2004 they split a home series against Wales, before beating France in Marseille and losing to Ireland by two in Dublin. In 2005 they drew with the Lions and beat Scotland at Murrayfield. In 2006 they beat Wales in a home series, ran the All Blacks within 4 points, beat England at Twickenham, Italy in Rome and came within 1 point of France in Paris.

Argentina had to qualify for the 2007 Rugby World Cup by playing Chile and Uruguay, but in the cup they topped their pool by beating hosts France in the opening game and Ireland in the last game in what essentially became a knock-out game. France too beat Ireland in a must-win earlier in the pool stages.

Argentina went on to eek out Scotland in the quarters, while France, who had suffered a shock and then the pressure of an elimination game already, managed to close out New Zealand to win 20-18 and go through to the semi-final. To contrast France's more difficult path, New Zealand had played Portugal, Romania, Italy and Scotland B, winning all 4 games and scoring 309 points and 46 tries (average of 77 points and 11 tries a game!)

Although South Africa ran out comfortable winners of Pool B (and truth be told, the cup as a whole), England, who were humiliated by South Africa before having consecutive "knock-out" games against tough opposition in Samoa and Tonga, arrived in the quarter-finals, like France, battle-hardened.  England's opponents, Australia, who were slightly less impressive than New Zealand (only averaging 54 points and 7.5 tries a game in their 4 pool matches), also found themselves untested and the result was the same - a 2 point loss for the pool topper.

In 2007, two teams who dropped games and faced elimination knocked out pool winners who had topped their pools comfortably.

2011 World Cup

2011 was an odd World Cup in that only 1 pool winner made the semi-finals, which throws into doubt the "importance" of topping your pool. The real Group of Death was again Group D, with World Champions South Africa, Gatland's Wales (who had come on leaps and bounds since 2007), a Samoa side fresh off a victory against Australia and 2007 World Cup quarter-finalists Fiji - probably the team that ran South Africa the closest at that tournament.

Wales reached their first semi-final since 1987. They did so having lost their opener to South Africa (by a solitary point). Losing your opener puts you teetering on the edge for the rest of the pool, and Wales navigated a minefield of a pool by beating Samoa before thrashing Namibia and 2007 nemeses Fiji. Wales then beat an Ireland team who put in a fantastic early performance to beat Australia, before cruising past Russia and Italy. Were Wales, who had played knock-out games against Samoa and Fiji, in better shape than Ireland?

In 2011, 3 pool runner-ups managed to topple pool winners.

---

So what does this mean for 2015?

Unless "play-off winner" have the tournament of their lives, two of Australia, Wales, England and Fiji will survive the so-called Group of Death. And then...?

Pool A is "twinned" with Pool B - South Africa, Samoa, Scotland, Japan and the USA. Assuming the pool goes to form, will the battle-hardened winner of Pool A be overly worried about Samoa or Scotland? Not if you've just beaten three of Australia/Wales/England/Fiji you won't.

As for the runner-up, will they be able to catch a South Africa team that may be a little undercooked? You have to assume the Boks, as the second best team in the World, will have little trouble with any of their opposition, and if Scotland and/or Samoa look to target their crunch game on the 10th October and rest a couple from that Boks game, will they get a proper test? As opposed to the runner-up of Group A, who will have come through possibly the toughest pool in Rugby World Cup history and quite probably one or two "knock-out" games along the way.

The same could be said of Pools C and D. New Zealand face a tough test against Argentina in their opener, but with little else standing in their way between that game and a potential quarter-final against Ireland or France, could the World Champions be upset by a team that has better preparation?

On the surface of the draw, it is a bad one for Australia, England and Wales. But if you want to win a World Cup, you have to be able to beat Australia, beat England or beat Wales. One of those teams will go out at the group, and it will be seen as a disaster for that nation. But for the other two, they will be in the Quarter-Final and in a good position to capitalise. South Africa and New Zealand will obviously have the 2015 Championship, but there is a while between the Championship and their next real test - the Quarter Final. In addition, the Rugby Championship isn't a knock-out competition. Neither team have played knock-out rugby since 2011, and neither team are likely to face the "do-or-die" of knock-out rugby in the Group Stages.

Although bookies probably wouldn't even take bets on South Africa or New Zealand qualifying, could we see a repeat of 2007 where the two teams with the weaker pools get undone by runners-up of the tougher pools? Is the Group of Death actually the one that doesn't prepare you for the rigours of knock-out rugby, as has been seen in 2003, 2007 and 2011?

interesting points. i often hear kiwis bemoaning the lack of real intensity in their pool matches which backs up your points.

but with the greatest respect to Arg, Fiji, Samoa in previous RWCs, there has never been a group like England, Aus, Wales and Fiji before.

No-one doubts that the winner of "groups of death" will be battle hardened. But i do feel for the welsh supporters who will be watching their team play Eng and Australia at twickenham. That does seem harsh, even if ultimately it is entirely Wales own fault for losing against Argentina and Samoa in the 2012 AIs which dropped them into the 9-12 IRB rankings.

What I can't work out is why they have to set the pools so far in advance anyway. Maybe someone can explain?

In 2003 it would be easy to argue that England, SA & Samoa was the group of death compared to Ireland, Australia and Argentina. I would go so far to say that at the time England were better than AUS, SA were better than Ireland and Samoa were better than Argentina. Although Ireland, Australia and Argentina were closer together as a competitive bunch.

In 2007 NZ were totally undercooked as Italy and Scotland refused to play their first teams against them and then they got the shock of their lives in the QF.

The key in any success of championship are squads. You need to have 30 players you know can start and do the business. Few players can go through the rounds and especially against some PI team who once beaten just want to get some notches on their belt.

I don't see anyone losing to Fiji. Yes they can beat Italy but the jump to beating the top trio is huge. Australia probably have the best of the draw as they have the luxury of seeing England and Wales go up against each other first. England don't necessarily have the very best players in the world but what they do have is a squad which plays at a very high level. They can cope with injuries far better than Wales can for instance.

Personally I reckon the team which is most unable to play their first choice team for their big two games will end up losing out.

For the trainspotters a few stats,NO team that has lost a match has won a RWC.Since 1999
when the 3/ 4 Ns occurred in same year as a RWC.No team to date has won a 3/4Ns and
RWC in the same year indeed in 2007 and 2011 it was sacrificed for the holy cow.

A Group of Death occurs usually when 3 Tier1 sides are in the same Group as in Group A
in 2015.Outside of a RWC the top 3 seeded sides there would expect a 50/50 chance of beating the other .

In a RWC especially given England the home side this time and purely on past RWC form
England and Australia would be bookies favourites to proceed to QFs.

This of course ignores certain facts RWC is usually the only time that Tier 2 sides have
full strength sides.For sake of argument though no longer strictly true this category
includes Argentina,italy,Japan,Fiji,Samoa,and Tonga.

All these sides as shown in the past are more than capable of turning over a Tier 1 side.
Also that there will be tactical manouevering to ensure they qualify automatically for 2019
and will be targeting games they expect to win.

Squad Management is crucial and if as in 2011 it starts only 14 days after the end of
RC then injuries carried over will occur.

It can be taken as a given NZ will win there Group probably unbeaten purely based on
past experience.I would expect SA to win theres too IF as expected when seedings were
made.The Assumptions are SA/NZ on one side of the draw Australia the other that there
will be a Weak and Strong side etc.

Further that Nz/SA will meet at some point in the draw before the Final eliminating one
of them.Then you will probably have a NZ/Sa v Aus./France/England final.

That at least is the script a NZ v Ire/France QF and Sa v Eng/Aus OF the others being
relatively easy.THAT of course depends on it going to script and it Won't a Refs decision
or a wildcard will change things it always does.

Interesting analysis, fellas, much appreciated

robbo277 wrote:Unless "play-off winner" have the tournament of their lives, two of Australia, Wales, England and Fiji will survive the so-called Group of Death.

Surely nobody thinks Fiji have any chance whatsoever of finishing in the top 2? They were awful at the last world cup and haven't really improved, have they?

Cyril the thing is they may not end up 2nd in the Group BUT may just possibly beat one
of the top 3.OR they may not score enough tries or points against them Tonga beat France
and only the try count guaranteed France progression after there 2 losses.