One view of next years World cup chances...

by Taylorman Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:39 am

First topic message reminder :

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11370175

Fair on most accounts without being to specific in any particular area.

by fa0019 Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:01 pm

beshocked wrote:
fa0019 wrote:
beshocked wrote:fa0019 disagree Scotland's chances of beating England at Twickenham are very slim even it pours it down. Haven't beaten England at Twickenham since 1983 and haven't looked like changing that trend.

They pushed a 2nd string NZ side (who would probably beat all bar say the top 3-4 sides comfortably themselves) all the way recently and beat an ARG side which then went on to beat France. They are not as bad as people say. Would they be favourites, no. Would victory be likely, no. Can I see England viewing them as a bit of a pushover, yes. Would the weather even the game up... under the right conditions yes. With rain and both sides being able to field a decent side I'd say it would be 70:30 to England.... but I'd bite your hand off for those odds. Its not as bleak as people make out.

I do wonder about this England team having the metal to win the games they need to. Outside of the NZ victory in 2012 if you had to say 1 word to describe them it would be "disappointing". They have talent, a top pack yet there is something not quite right about them.

I'd say this... Scotland's chance of beating England is as good as England's chance of beating NZ. I think both are unlikely yet both possible.

If the game was at Murrayfield I would say Scotland would fancy their chances, at Twickenham it's a different matter...

Twickenham might not be a daunting prospect for some sides but for Scotland in particular it is. In many of the games Scotland haven't even looked close to beating England.

England have a higher chance of beating NZ at Twickenham because they've done it only two years ago, Scotland in contrast haven't beaten England at Twickenham since 83.

The England side that lost this year in the AIs was not full strength, the wrong player was picked at 10. I feel that England can be a lot better than that.

You're right - England haven't clicked yet but if they do they will be very dangerous.

I agree with much of what your're saying Beshocked but I think the diff between Scotland and England are closer than England and New Zealand and home advantage for me evens it out.

In the end I think England have the potential to beat anyhow... even if the tournament wasn't in England. But you do have to wonder how this team deals with pressure. For a team so talented they've blown quite a few high profile games, take a lot of odd decisions mid game and Lancasters umming and erring is starting to show a personality of someone who has no idea who to play or how to play.

Looking at the mentality of this side I think its more likely they'll slip to a banana skin rather than ride the wave of optimism all the way to the top.

by beshocked Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:08 pm

SecretFly wrote:
beshocked wrote:
secretfly perhaps not but it gives you a good indication of what is likely to happen. I know you like to dismiss records but they do matter.

I like to dismiss Qualification and records, yes I'm a maverick me. On another thread I'm even mulling over the idea of no refs.

But back to reality for a bit - a strange strange world to me - Records DO mean something - but only to the Past, never the future. Everything out there that we're discussing is the future. Remember Exeter Always think about recordless records being written for a first time.

Maverick isn't the word I would use!

At looking at the past you get an idea of what might well happen in the future.

If team X struggles with team Y then in all likelihood team X will continue to struggle with team Y till something significant happens to change that viewpoint. Of course records are not the only thing that measures whether a team will win but to ignore it is foolish.

by fa0019 Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:11 pm

thebandwagonsociety wrote:
Biltong wrote:I suspect it very much depends who the hosts are though.

Quite True, Japan will be dark horses soon enough!

Mate only if they start to field a team such as this

Du Plessis, Claassen, Strydom, Van Vuren, MacDonald, Potgeiter, Smit, Johnson, McInnes, Bennett, Jones, Botha, Van Gysen, Weise, Swanepoel.

by Bullsbok Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:12 pm

Biltong wrote:I suspect it very much depends who the hosts are though.

Was just about to say that.For host advantage to be a big factor , your main field ie Eden Park,Stade De Paris ,Aviva ,Ellis Park etc should be damn near impregnable for all comers regardless of who they are otherwise there's no fear factor.Thats why i dont buy into the whole England home advantage story .

by TJ Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:16 pm

My view

Nz / England joint favourites ( i did have england as favourites but am rather underwhelmed by the AI games and the way they could only manage a win by playing stodgy rugby against a poorish Aus) NZ simply are what they are and their big advantage is in having a pool of players all of whom can slot in and having perhaps the worlds best player - Mc Bloody Caw

Ireland / SA semi finalists

Wales - the group is very much against tehm and I think they are only 50 / 50 to get out of the group ( its them or Aus)

Scotland. Should get out of the group. Don't have the strength in depth to get any further

by westisbest Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:18 pm

Gwlad wrote:Key pool games seem to be Ireland v France to avoid NZ quarter, Scotland v Samoa for RU Pool B and whether Wales, England or Australia will survive Group A. Winning that group and avoiding an SA quarter is the aim.

I think Wales are capable of beating Australia and did show well last time round at RWC but in terms of big game mentality the Aussies have it. Of course Wales could beat England in Twickenham and whatever Dallaglio says i am banking on that result with England to beat Aus and it to come down to PD. A lot of confidence will be earned by the 6 Nations winner in February.

QF 1
Wales v Samoa
QF 2
England v SA
QF 3
NZ v Fr (Barnes to ref!)
QF 4
Ireland v Arg

SF
Wales v NZ
SF
Ire v EngF
Wales v England

Wales by at least 42 points

QED

I'd take that semi.
With us beating them on their own turf.

by beshocked Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:20 pm

fa0019 wrote:
beshocked wrote:
fa0019 wrote:
beshocked wrote:fa0019 disagree Scotland's chances of beating England at Twickenham are very slim even it pours it down. Haven't beaten England at Twickenham since 1983 and haven't looked like changing that trend.

They pushed a 2nd string NZ side (who would probably beat all bar say the top 3-4 sides comfortably themselves) all the way recently and beat an ARG side which then went on to beat France. They are not as bad as people say. Would they be favourites, no. Would victory be likely, no. Can I see England viewing them as a bit of a pushover, yes. Would the weather even the game up... under the right conditions yes. With rain and both sides being able to field a decent side I'd say it would be 70:30 to England.... but I'd bite your hand off for those odds. Its not as bleak as people make out.

I do wonder about this England team having the metal to win the games they need to. Outside of the NZ victory in 2012 if you had to say 1 word to describe them it would be "disappointing". They have talent, a top pack yet there is something not quite right about them.

I'd say this... Scotland's chance of beating England is as good as England's chance of beating NZ. I think both are unlikely yet both possible.

If the game was at Murrayfield I would say Scotland would fancy their chances, at Twickenham it's a different matter...

Twickenham might not be a daunting prospect for some sides but for Scotland in particular it is. In many of the games Scotland haven't even looked close to beating England.

England have a higher chance of beating NZ at Twickenham because they've done it only two years ago, Scotland in contrast haven't beaten England at Twickenham since 83.

The England side that lost this year in the AIs was not full strength, the wrong player was picked at 10. I feel that England can be a lot better than that.

You're right - England haven't clicked yet but if they do they will be very dangerous.

I agree with much of what your're saying Beshocked but I think the diff between Scotland and England are closer than England and New Zealand and home advantage for me evens it out.

In the end I think England have the potential to beat anyhow... even if the tournament wasn't in England. But you do have to wonder how this team deals with pressure. For a team so talented they've blown quite a few high profile games, take a lot of odd decisions mid game and Lancasters umming and erring is starting to show a personality of someone who has no idea who to play or how to play.

Looking at the mentality of this side I think its more likely they'll slip to a banana skin rather than ride the wave of optimism all the way to the top.

I disagree completely.

England beat NZ two years, Scotland haven't beaten England at Twickenham since 1983.

Poor selection has hampered England mostly and some baffling replacements.

I don't feel that mentally England are lacking - I just think it's sometimes a lack of ideas from both the coaches and players that let the side down.

by **Biltong** Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:20 pm

Bullsbok wrote:
Biltong wrote:I suspect it very much depends who the hosts are though.

Was just about to say that.For host advantage to be a big factor , your main field ie Eden Park,Stade De Paris ,Aviva ,Ellis Park etc should be damn near impregnable for all comers regardless of who they are otherwise there's no fear factor.Thats why i dont buy into the whole England home advantage story .

I kind of agree with you if I think about it.

In the last decade England at Twickenham.

vs NZ 1/8
vs SA 1/6
vs OZ 4/7
vs IRE 3/5
vs FRA 4/6
vs WAL 5/7

Not exactly a fortress.

by beshocked Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:27 pm

Biltong wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:
Biltong wrote:I suspect it very much depends who the hosts are though.

Was just about to say that.For host advantage to be a big factor , your main field ie Eden Park,Stade De Paris ,Aviva ,Ellis Park etc should be damn near impregnable for all comers regardless of who they are otherwise there's no fear factor.Thats why i dont buy into the whole England home advantage story .

I kind of agree with you if I think about it.

In the last decade England at Twickenham.

vs NZ 1/8
vs SA 1/6
vs OZ 4/7
vs IRE 3/5
vs FRA 4/6
vs WAL 5/7

Not exactly a fortress.

Still is a above 50% win rate against every side bar SA and NZ hence why I said England would start the favourites against any team except those two.

Didn't say Twickenham was a fortress except against the Scots and Italians. I was saying it's harder for teams to win there than their own patch.

Shouldn't leave out the 100% win rates against Scotland and Italy at Twickenham. For them it is indeed a fortress.

by **Biltong** Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:32 pm

Gwlad wrote:Key pool games seem to be Ireland v France to avoid NZ quarter, Scotland v Samoa for RU Pool B and whether Wales, England or Australia will survive Group A. Winning that group and avoiding an SA quarter is the aim.

I think Wales are capable of beating Australia and did show well last time round at RWC but in terms of big game mentality the Aussies have it. Of course Wales could beat England in Twickenham and whatever Dallaglio says i am banking on that result with England to beat Aus and it to come down to PD. A lot of confidence will be earned by the 6 Nations winner in February.

QF 1
Wales v Samoa
QF 2
England v SA
QF 3
NZ v Fr (Barnes to ref!)
QF 4
Ireland v Arg

SF
Wales v NZ
SF
Ire v Eng

F
Wales v England

Wales by at least 42 points

QED

You are that confident England will beat SA?

by fa0019 Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:36 pm

the problem is beshocked whilst you're right for non SA and NZ. For SA and NZ its still...

SA - 1 in 13 or 7.7%
NZ - 1 in 13 or 7.7%

at home its marginally better

SA - 1 in 6 or 17%.
NZ - 1 in 8 or 13%.

Doesn't look great now...sounds like a welsh, on our day stat that.

by HammerofThunor Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:43 pm

Biltong wrote:
Gwlad wrote:Key pool games seem to be Ireland v France to avoid NZ quarter, Scotland v Samoa for RU Pool B and whether Wales, England or Australia will survive Group A. Winning that group and avoiding an SA quarter is the aim.

I think Wales are capable of beating Australia and did show well last time round at RWC but in terms of big game mentality the Aussies have it. Of course Wales could beat England in Twickenham and whatever Dallaglio says i am banking on that result with England to beat Aus and it to come down to PD. A lot of confidence will be earned by the 6 Nations winner in February.

QF 1
Wales v Samoa
QF 2
England v SA
QF 3
NZ v Fr (Barnes to ref!)
QF 4
Ireland v Arg

SF
Wales v NZ
SF
Ire v Eng

F
Wales v England

Wales by at least 42 points

QED

You are that confident England will beat SA?

He's got Wales beating NZ and you pick him up on England South Africa? I think that is a hopeful, rather than realistic expectation.

by **Biltong** Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:47 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Gwlad wrote:Key pool games seem to be Ireland v France to avoid NZ quarter, Scotland v Samoa for RU Pool B and whether Wales, England or Australia will survive Group A. Winning that group and avoiding an SA quarter is the aim.

I think Wales are capable of beating Australia and did show well last time round at RWC but in terms of big game mentality the Aussies have it. Of course Wales could beat England in Twickenham and whatever Dallaglio says i am banking on that result with England to beat Aus and it to come down to PD. A lot of confidence will be earned by the 6 Nations winner in February.

QF 1
Wales v Samoa
QF 2
England v SA
QF 3
NZ v Fr (Barnes to ref!)
QF 4
Ireland v Arg

SF
Wales v NZ
SF
Ire v Eng

F
Wales v England

Wales by at least 42 points

QED

You are that confident England will beat SA?

He's got Wales beating NZ and you pick him up on England South Africa? I think that is a hopeful, rather than realistic expectation.

Sorry, I was blinded Smile

by SecretFly Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:48 pm

beshocked wrote:
Maverick isn't the word I would use!
At looking at the past you get an idea of what might well happen in the future.

If team X struggles with team Y then in all likelihood team X will continue to struggle with team Y till something significant happens to change that viewpoint. Of course records are not the only thing that measures whether a team will win but to ignore it is foolish.

Genius then Wink

I was too modest before.

It's not about ignoring history. I don't ignore history but it's an over use of and an over reliance on it that can be ....well, it can kill discussions stone dead. Scotland can't win in Twickenham because the record suggests it doesn't happen often?
Grand.
That's Scotland out of the discussion of the WC. And on to the Real teams...the BIG teams. Let's not talk of little people and their hopes, let's talk realism - NZ, SA, AUS or ENG.

by fa0019 Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:52 pm

saying that.

prior to 1995 the boks were probably 5th favourite behind

AUS
ENG
FRA
NZ
SA

in that order.

Since re-introduction they had won only 3 of 15 matches vs. the other 4 major sides with no back to back victories.
Then they put together 4 wins on the trot (1 vs. each) in 1995 with 3 in the RWC to win.

Shows that on your day has it's merits.

by TJ Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:03 am

England ( like Wales perhpas) have a weakness in being too predictable and struggling to find the right combinations in the backs to score tries - Partly a player issue and partly a coaching issue

One thing I hope for is someone produces some innovating tactics

by Barney McGrew did it Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:11 am

This is too premature – I think we need to see how the 6N goes before getting too carried away with predictions.

Will Ireland’s excellent form continue?
Will England actually be able to field a back line Stewie wants?
Will Biggar show consistent test form, and will Jamie R ever be able to keep hold of the ball in contact?

A couple of shoo-ins:
Scotland to remain dark horses.
France to depend on the France that turns up (although it’s always the same France, you know the one that's too good to lose but usually manages it).

A few SH points of interest:
Have Aus finally become the new France (you know the one that loses a lot, despite being too good to)?
Have the NH started to suss out SA, and have they turned into the new Wales?
Will NZ come down with the Twickers Tum?

by TJ Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:32 am

Taylorman wrote:My concern is what progress the 3 Kiwi coaches will bring to the 3 NH sides within 12 months.

They all had good AI's and two haven't been there long so I've a hunch that feeling's going to turn into an awful itch soon...

Cotter seems to have done good stuff with Scotland. Just simple things like picking the form players in the correct positions and fitting the tactics to the players we have not trying to fit the players to the tactics. The difference from 10 years of crap coaches is astonishing.

by Bullsbok Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:35 am

Barney McGrew did it wrote:This is too premature – I think we need to see how the 6N goes before getting too carried away with predictions.

Will Ireland’s excellent form continue?
Will England actually be able to field a back line Stewie wants?
Will Biggar show consistent test form, and will Jamie R ever be able to keep hold of the ball in contact?

A couple of shoo-ins:
Scotland to remain dark horses.
France to depend on the France that turns up (although it’s always the same France, you know the one that's too good to lose but usually manages it).

A few SH points of interest:
Have Aus finally become the new France (you know the one that loses a lot, despite being too good to)?
Have the NH started to suss out SA, and have they turned into the new Wales?
Will NZ come down with the Twickers Tum?

2 Victories in 3 years ?? Started to suss SA out ?

by **rodders** Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:38 am

beshocked wrote:
rodders wrote:
beshocked wrote:rodders not impregnable, just not as easy to knock down as you seem to think. Home advantage is very much played down for some strange reason.

Well statistically speaking 100% of NH RWC host nations have failed to win the tournament on home soil and only have a 33% chance of making the final, in which they historically have 100% chance of losing... so maybe its not as big advantage as you think.

Hosts - In 7 of the world cups 3 of them have been won by the home side.

So in 4 of the 7 they were won by the away one? In three of the others the ABs either choked or were food poisoned by the hosts so that skews that stats a bit too.

by alive555 Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:48 am

fa0019 wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:Typically poor NZ article. Very little substance but at least reasonably impartial for once.

Firstly on Ireland, Play at pace and with width Ireland havent played with much width all year so not sure where they get that.

Samoa: Like Scotland, they could be a surprise package in the last eight if they

If they what? If the NZ Herald gets an editor.

In some ways I think Scotland could be a surprise banana skin. I do expect them to qualify for the RU spot to face either AUS or ENG. Scotland look like they are turning into a decent outfit and at Twickenham if the weather is poor then their chances rise tenfold. I don't expect them to but in poor conditions they only team I would say they have zero chance against would be vs. NZ. The rest, they've proven they can beat the rest come their day.

The weather was poor this year, who knows what it will be like next Oct/Nov.

Actually the complete opposite is true. Right now scotland plays a much more expansive game than England do, so for the first time in a long time bad weather would suit the big england pack.

by No 7&1/2 Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:52 am

At Twickenham against Scotland I don't think it matters what the weather is tbh.

by MichaelT Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:54 am

rodders wrote:
beshocked wrote:
rodders wrote:
beshocked wrote:rodders not impregnable, just not as easy to knock down as you seem to think. Home advantage is very much played down for some strange reason.

Well statistically speaking 100% of NH RWC host nations have failed to win the tournament on home soil and only have a 33% chance of making the final, in which they historically have 100% chance of losing... so maybe its not as big advantage as you think.

Hosts - In 7 of the world cups 3 of them have been won by the home side.

So in 4 of the 7 they were won by the away one? In three of the others the ABs either choked or were food poisoned by the hosts so that skews that stats a bit too.

How about in 5 out of 7 tournaments the hosts have been in the final? Its getting closer...

Lies, damn lies and statistics

by Barney McGrew did it Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:59 am

Bullsbok wrote:
Barney McGrew did it wrote:This is too premature – I think we need to see how the 6N goes before getting too carried away with predictions.

Will Ireland’s excellent form continue?
Will England actually be able to field a back line Stewie wants?
Will Biggar show consistent test form, and will Jamie R ever be able to keep hold of the ball in contact?

A couple of shoo-ins:
Scotland to remain dark horses.
France to depend on the France that turns up (although it’s always the same France, you know the one that's too good to lose but usually manages it).

A few SH points of interest:
Have Aus finally become the new France (you know the one that loses a lot, despite being too good to)?
Have the NH started to suss out SA, and have they turned into the new Wales?
Will NZ come down with the Twickers Tum?

*** 2 Victories in 3 ~~years~~ games?? Started to suss SA out ? ***

***Corrected that for you

by Bullsbok Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:01 am

Barney McGrew did it wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:
Barney McGrew did it wrote:This is too premature – I think we need to see how the 6N goes before getting too carried away with predictions.

Will Ireland’s excellent form continue?
Will England actually be able to field a back line Stewie wants?
Will Biggar show consistent test form, and will Jamie R ever be able to keep hold of the ball in contact?

A couple of shoo-ins:
Scotland to remain dark horses.
France to depend on the France that turns up (although it’s always the same France, you know the one that's too good to lose but usually manages it).

A few SH points of interest:
Have Aus finally become the new France (you know the one that loses a lot, despite being too good to)?
Have the NH started to suss out SA, and have they turned into the new Wales?
Will NZ come down with the Twickers Tum?

*** 2 Victories in 3 ~~years~~ games?? Started to suss SA out ? ***

***Corrected that for you

Nah i like my one better . But if you wanna get technical its 2 victories in 5 games since we beat Wales and Scotland in the Republik in the Summer

by **rodders** Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:04 am

MichaelT wrote:
rodders wrote:
beshocked wrote:
rodders wrote:
beshocked wrote:rodders not impregnable, just not as easy to knock down as you seem to think. Home advantage is very much played down for some strange reason.

Well statistically speaking 100% of NH RWC host nations have failed to win the tournament on home soil and only have a 33% chance of making the final, in which they historically have 100% chance of losing... so maybe its not as big advantage as you think.

Hosts - In 7 of the world cups 3 of them have been won by the home side.

So in 4 of the 7 they were won by the away one? In three of the others the ABs either choked or were food poisoned by the hosts so that skews that stats a bit too.

How about in 5 out of 7 tournaments the hosts have been in the final? Its getting closer...

Lies, damn lies and statistics

Really? - that's impressive - who did they play against? ....

by MichaelT Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:13 am

rodders wrote:
MichaelT wrote:
rodders wrote:
beshocked wrote:
rodders wrote:
beshocked wrote:rodders not impregnable, just not as easy to knock down as you seem to think. Home advantage is very much played down for some strange reason.

Well statistically speaking 100% of NH RWC host nations have failed to win the tournament on home soil and only have a 33% chance of making the final, in which they historically have 100% chance of losing... so maybe its not as big advantage as you think.

Hosts - In 7 of the world cups 3 of them have been won by the home side.

So in 4 of the 7 they were won by the away one? In three of the others the ABs either choked or were food poisoned by the hosts so that skews that stats a bit too.

How about in 5 out of 7 tournaments the hosts have been in the final? Its getting closer...

Lies, damn lies and statistics

Really? - that's impressive - who did they play against? ....

Not sure I follow, have I not got that right? '87 New Zealand in final, '91 England, '95 South Africa, '03 Australia and '11 New Zealand again.

I was just joining in on someone saying 3, then you said 4, 5 is next, whats 6 out of 7 for World Cups?

by SecretFly Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:18 am

rodders wrote:
MichaelT wrote:
How about in 5 out of 7 tournaments the hosts have been in the final? Its getting closer...

Lies, damn lies and statistics

Really? - that's impressive - who did they play against? ....

..the non-hosts?

by SecretFly Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:21 am

MichaelT wrote:
Not sure I follow, have I not got that right? '87 New Zealand in final, '91 England, '95 South Africa, '03 Australia and '11 New Zealand again.

I was just joining in on someone saying 3, then you said 4, 5 is next, whats 6 out of 7 for World Cups?

6 of the World Cup victories were in double digit scorelines for the winners.

and....7 of the winners of the world cup....em...............won the world cup.

That's the lot Wink

by **rodders** Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:25 am

The point being that 5 times the host made the final - then 9 times a non host made the final.

There for the host has a 5 in 7 chance of making the final and a 3 in 5 chance of winning when they get there.

However this drops to 1 in 7 and 0 in 5 if the host is in the NH.

By contrast an away team has a 9 in 7 chance of making the final and a 4 in 7 chance of winning.

by TJ Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:27 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:At Twickenham against Scotland I don't think it matters what the weather is tbh.

True to some extent but its also true that a dry day and a hard pitch will help Scotland - they are very fit young and mobile and like to play a fast paced offloading game- the key things will be can england find the creativity to score trys and will scotland have the self belief and uninjured players to play at their best.

Its a tall order for scotland for sure and probably the end of their tournament. If England are going to win the WC they will need to find that spark to score tries and I wouldn't want to bet against them doing so

by MichaelT Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:28 am

SecretFly wrote:
MichaelT wrote:
Not sure I follow, have I not got that right? '87 New Zealand in final, '91 England, '95 South Africa, '03 Australia and '11 New Zealand again.

I was just joining in on someone saying 3, then you said 4, 5 is next, whats 6 out of 7 for World Cups?

6 of the World Cup victories were in double digit scorelines for the winners.

and....7 of the winners of the world cup....em...............won the world cup.

That's the lot

It does feel a crap 12 days of Christmas type song doesn't it? One view of next years World cup chances... - Page 2 1054138444

by No 7&1/2 Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:33 am

TJ wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:At Twickenham against Scotland I don't think it matters what the weather is tbh.

True to some extent but its also true that a dry day and a hard pitch will help Scotland - they are very fit young and mobile and like to play a fast paced offloading game- the key things will be can england find the creativity to score trys and will scotland have the self belief and uninjured players to play at their best.

Its a tall order for scotland for sure and probably the end of their tournament. If England are going to win the WC they will need to find that spark to score tries and I wouldn't want to bet against them doing so

Well based on the 1st 2 games of the AIs you'd probably be correct, based on the rest of the games I'm not so sure. The pitch at Murrayfield prevented us from getting a better score and winning the 6Ns and made it much closer. Guess whether you feel England having 2 bad games against the top sides in the world where we still matched them for tries I believe is representative?

by SecretFly Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:37 am

rodders wrote:The point being that 5 times the host made the final - then 9 times a non host made the final.

There for the host has a 5 in 7 chance of making the final and a 3 in 5 chance of winning when they get there.

However this drops to 1 in 7 and 0 in 5 if the host is in the NH.

By contrast an away team has a 9 in 7 chance of making the final and a 4 in 7 chance of winning.

Slower please.!!! I was never great at taking down sums from the blackboard........... em...................... oh I give up. Was the answer 11?

by lostinwales Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:45 am

alive555 wrote:
fa0019 wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:Typically poor NZ article. Very little substance but at least reasonably impartial for once.

Firstly on Ireland, Play at pace and with width Ireland havent played with much width all year so not sure where they get that.

Samoa: Like Scotland, they could be a surprise package in the last eight if they

If they what? If the NZ Herald gets an editor.

In some ways I think Scotland could be a surprise banana skin. I do expect them to qualify for the RU spot to face either AUS or ENG. Scotland look like they are turning into a decent outfit and at Twickenham if the weather is poor then their chances rise tenfold. I don't expect them to but in poor conditions they only team I would say they have zero chance against would be vs. NZ. The rest, they've proven they can beat the rest come their day.

The weather was poor this year, who knows what it will be like next Oct/Nov.

Actually the complete opposite is true. Right now scotland plays a much more expansive game than England do, so for the first time in a long time bad weather would suit the big england pack.

I wouldnt be surprised if there was parity in pack size, especially without the Vunipola boys and with Morgan having lost a few pounds. Gray brothers add a lot of ballast.

by The Saint Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:51 am

Bullsbok wrote:
Griff wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Well, like guys are saying... its a rough guestimate of probability based on the latest evidence that's as good as any other out there.

The only one I'd have a mild issue with is the continuing underplaying of Wales. Yes, they are whatever ranking they are now, yes they seem to have a tough time getting past Australia (I don't think it's psychological, it's just simply not getting there each and every time - but it will happen one day and that day is therefore getting closer), and yes England beat them out the door of Twickenham the last 6N.
But these guys will be extremely well prepared physically come the WC (better than during the AIs) and they'll be fired emotionally, not by Gatland but by a rabid Edwards. And when a Welsh team is super fit (which they will be) and emotionally on fire, they're dangerous to any side and a handful that can't be tamed by teams not prepared for the surge. Last World Cup wasn't a fluke, it was Wales going for it and perhaps only a red card stopping their surge to a final.

They have I think two games at home in the Millennium? They'll be used as momentum driver games for them. They'll be intent on getting a head of steam up and they thrive on that growing energy of confidence - it hones their game and cuts out errors. So they'll be up for the pool.
It's a genuine three way show that could go anyway. If I saw any side dropping below the standard required for that pool right now, it would be Australia and that's even with Cheika in charge and having a year to work on things. I don't think Australia will fully respect the challenge Wales can bring and it might be costly.

I dont think its underestimating Wales , more like underestimating their chances of pulling together three big games to win the World Cup . The Aussies never dissapoint come world cup time unfortunately for group A . I can see them losing one game in the pools at best but they wont lose to both England and Wales that much is near certain . Imo the team with the higher chance of dropping out is Wales simply because of Fiji. I dont doubt Wales can and I think will beat England in the pool game based purely on unrelenting passion which will overcome most .But they wont put up a big score v Fiji as they've proved time and time again . England has an equal chance of beating the Aussies which leaves it at 1 all for the three teams and puts it down to points difference in which case the Aussies will top the group . I'm probably wrong to be sure but i doubt any of the three teams will leave the pool games undefeated .

Apart from the last time we faced them in a World Cup (the last one) when we beat them 66-0?

But still, I don't see us getting to the quarters. Just a gut feeling.

True buts thats more of an anomaly than anything . since 2000 there've been two blowout victories for Wales then a loss a draw and multiple tight wins

SA and Wales thrashed both Fiji and Namibia, and struggled to put away a strong Samoa. There was one point between the teams when we played the Boks. I'd say it was a reflection of the form of both teams at the time rather than an anomaly. Wales were one of the highest scoring teams in the pool stages in that world cup.

I see Wales going out in 2015, I think the form of Aus is key. If it wasn't for Joubert making up his own rules at the breakdown as he so often does then Australia could have been 4 losses from 4 in the autumn. If they don't improve they could be the ones to go out, I can't see it being England for a number of reasons.

by Bullsbok Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:57 am

The Saint wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:
Griff wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Well, like guys are saying... its a rough guestimate of probability based on the latest evidence that's as good as any other out there.

The only one I'd have a mild issue with is the continuing underplaying of Wales. Yes, they are whatever ranking they are now, yes they seem to have a tough time getting past Australia (I don't think it's psychological, it's just simply not getting there each and every time - but it will happen one day and that day is therefore getting closer), and yes England beat them out the door of Twickenham the last 6N.
But these guys will be extremely well prepared physically come the WC (better than during the AIs) and they'll be fired emotionally, not by Gatland but by a rabid Edwards. And when a Welsh team is super fit (which they will be) and emotionally on fire, they're dangerous to any side and a handful that can't be tamed by teams not prepared for the surge. Last World Cup wasn't a fluke, it was Wales going for it and perhaps only a red card stopping their surge to a final.

They have I think two games at home in the Millennium? They'll be used as momentum driver games for them. They'll be intent on getting a head of steam up and they thrive on that growing energy of confidence - it hones their game and cuts out errors. So they'll be up for the pool.
It's a genuine three way show that could go anyway. If I saw any side dropping below the standard required for that pool right now, it would be Australia and that's even with Cheika in charge and having a year to work on things. I don't think Australia will fully respect the challenge Wales can bring and it might be costly.

I dont think its underestimating Wales , more like underestimating their chances of pulling together three big games to win the World Cup . The Aussies never dissapoint come world cup time unfortunately for group A . I can see them losing one game in the pools at best but they wont lose to both England and Wales that much is near certain . Imo the team with the higher chance of dropping out is Wales simply because of Fiji. I dont doubt Wales can and I think will beat England in the pool game based purely on unrelenting passion which will overcome most .But they wont put up a big score v Fiji as they've proved time and time again . England has an equal chance of beating the Aussies which leaves it at 1 all for the three teams and puts it down to points difference in which case the Aussies will top the group . I'm probably wrong to be sure but i doubt any of the three teams will leave the pool games undefeated .

Apart from the last time we faced them in a World Cup (the last one) when we beat them 66-0?

But still, I don't see us getting to the quarters. Just a gut feeling.

True buts thats more of an anomaly than anything . since 2000 there've been two blowout victories for Wales then a loss a draw and multiple tight wins

SA and Wales thrashed both Fiji and Namibia, and struggled to put away a strong Samoa. There was one point between the teams when we played the Boks. I'd say it was a reflection of the form of both teams at the time rather than an anomaly. Wales were one of the highest scoring teams in the pool stages in that world cup.

I see Wales going out in 2015, I think the form of Aus is key. If it wasn't for Joubert making up his own rules at the breakdown as he so often does then Australia could have been 4 losses from 4 in the autumn. If they don't improve they could be the ones to go out, I can't see it being England for a number of reasons.

Same could be said for NH refs allowing free for alls of the feet at the breakdown so thats no excuse just different interpretations

by alive555 Thu Dec 11, 2014 2:25 am

lostinwales wrote:
alive555 wrote:
fa0019 wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:Typically poor NZ article. Very little substance but at least reasonably impartial for once.

Firstly on Ireland, Play at pace and with width Ireland havent played with much width all year so not sure where they get that.

Samoa: Like Scotland, they could be a surprise package in the last eight if they

If they what? If the NZ Herald gets an editor.

In some ways I think Scotland could be a surprise banana skin. I do expect them to qualify for the RU spot to face either AUS or ENG. Scotland look like they are turning into a decent outfit and at Twickenham if the weather is poor then their chances rise tenfold. I don't expect them to but in poor conditions they only team I would say they have zero chance against would be vs. NZ. The rest, they've proven they can beat the rest come their day.

The weather was poor this year, who knows what it will be like next Oct/Nov.

Actually the complete opposite is true. Right now scotland plays a much more expansive game than England do, so for the first time in a long time bad weather would suit the big england pack.

I wouldnt be surprised if there was parity in pack size, especially without the Vunipola boys and with Morgan having lost a few pounds. Gray brothers add a lot of ballast.

possibly right. but i still think england would have the grunt in the scrum. But what i was alluding to was that England are playing the old england way , forward orientated up the jumper style rugby with a hefty dose of kicking. not an expansive game suited to good weather. bad weather would probably benefit englands game right now.

by beshocked Thu Dec 11, 2014 4:34 am

Generally Scotland don't score more tries than England in a rugby match - between the two countries.

Going by this history you have to go back to 1994 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_union_matches_between_England_and_Scotland

Being "Expansive" means very little if the opposition repeatedly score more tries than you.

"Expansive" Scotland vs lumbering England - Laugh

by The Saint Thu Dec 11, 2014 5:59 am

Bullsbok wrote:
The Saint wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:
Griff wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Well, like guys are saying... its a rough guestimate of probability based on the latest evidence that's as good as any other out there.

The only one I'd have a mild issue with is the continuing underplaying of Wales. Yes, they are whatever ranking they are now, yes they seem to have a tough time getting past Australia (I don't think it's psychological, it's just simply not getting there each and every time - but it will happen one day and that day is therefore getting closer), and yes England beat them out the door of Twickenham the last 6N.
But these guys will be extremely well prepared physically come the WC (better than during the AIs) and they'll be fired emotionally, not by Gatland but by a rabid Edwards. And when a Welsh team is super fit (which they will be) and emotionally on fire, they're dangerous to any side and a handful that can't be tamed by teams not prepared for the surge. Last World Cup wasn't a fluke, it was Wales going for it and perhaps only a red card stopping their surge to a final.

They have I think two games at home in the Millennium? They'll be used as momentum driver games for them. They'll be intent on getting a head of steam up and they thrive on that growing energy of confidence - it hones their game and cuts out errors. So they'll be up for the pool.
It's a genuine three way show that could go anyway. If I saw any side dropping below the standard required for that pool right now, it would be Australia and that's even with Cheika in charge and having a year to work on things. I don't think Australia will fully respect the challenge Wales can bring and it might be costly.

I dont think its underestimating Wales , more like underestimating their chances of pulling together three big games to win the World Cup . The Aussies never dissapoint come world cup time unfortunately for group A . I can see them losing one game in the pools at best but they wont lose to both England and Wales that much is near certain . Imo the team with the higher chance of dropping out is Wales simply because of Fiji. I dont doubt Wales can and I think will beat England in the pool game based purely on unrelenting passion which will overcome most .But they wont put up a big score v Fiji as they've proved time and time again . England has an equal chance of beating the Aussies which leaves it at 1 all for the three teams and puts it down to points difference in which case the Aussies will top the group . I'm probably wrong to be sure but i doubt any of the three teams will leave the pool games undefeated .

Apart from the last time we faced them in a World Cup (the last one) when we beat them 66-0?

But still, I don't see us getting to the quarters. Just a gut feeling.

True buts thats more of an anomaly than anything . since 2000 there've been two blowout victories for Wales then a loss a draw and multiple tight wins

SA and Wales thrashed both Fiji and Namibia, and struggled to put away a strong Samoa. There was one point between the teams when we played the Boks. I'd say it was a reflection of the form of both teams at the time rather than an anomaly. Wales were one of the highest scoring teams in the pool stages in that world cup.

I see Wales going out in 2015, I think the form of Aus is key. If it wasn't for Joubert making up his own rules at the breakdown as he so often does then Australia could have been 4 losses from 4 in the autumn. If they don't improve they could be the ones to go out, I can't see it being England for a number of reasons.

Same could be said for NH refs allowing free for alls of the feet at the breakdown so thats no excuse just different interpretations

Not when it happens as often as it does with Joubert.

by TJ Thu Dec 11, 2014 6:57 am

lostinwales wrote:
alive555 wrote:

Actually the complete opposite is true. Right now scotland plays a much more expansive game than England do, so for the first time in a long time bad weather would suit the big england pack.

I wouldnt be surprised if there was parity in pack size, especially without the Vunipola boys and with Morgan having lost a few pounds. Gray brothers add a lot of ballast.

In recent years the scotland pack has not been smaller than its rivals and often bigger. Depends on the pick but no longer are we a stone a man down like we were 10 years ago. We just got some huge guys plying for us/ Ritchie gray is 20+ stone and lean. I'll see if I can find stats. However many of our forwards are young,very fit and mobile

by TJ Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:15 am

Ok so I had an actual look at some numbers. England pack against NZ 912 kgs scotland V NZ 914 kg ( but I did put denton in instead of Ashe as Denton would be my pick ;-) Denton does outweigh Ashe by around 10 kgs )

Scotland are heavier in 5 of the 8 forwards. Vunipola and Wilson are the only england players who significantly weigh more than the scot opposite - and I accuse them both of being pie eaters not atheletes Wink

by BigTrevsbigmac Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:17 am

The Saint wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:
Griff wrote:
Bullsbok wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Well, like guys are saying... its a rough guestimate of probability based on the latest evidence that's as good as any other out there.

The only one I'd have a mild issue with is the continuing underplaying of Wales. Yes, they are whatever ranking they are now, yes they seem to have a tough time getting past Australia (I don't think it's psychological, it's just simply not getting there each and every time - but it will happen one day and that day is therefore getting closer), and yes England beat them out the door of Twickenham the last 6N.
But these guys will be extremely well prepared physically come the WC (better than during the AIs) and they'll be fired emotionally, not by Gatland but by a rabid Edwards. And when a Welsh team is super fit (which they will be) and emotionally on fire, they're dangerous to any side and a handful that can't be tamed by teams not prepared for the surge. Last World Cup wasn't a fluke, it was Wales going for it and perhaps only a red card stopping their surge to a final.

They have I think two games at home in the Millennium? They'll be used as momentum driver games for them. They'll be intent on getting a head of steam up and they thrive on that growing energy of confidence - it hones their game and cuts out errors. So they'll be up for the pool.
It's a genuine three way show that could go anyway. If I saw any side dropping below the standard required for that pool right now, it would be Australia and that's even with Cheika in charge and having a year to work on things. I don't think Australia will fully respect the challenge Wales can bring and it might be costly.

I dont think its underestimating Wales , more like underestimating their chances of pulling together three big games to win the World Cup . The Aussies never dissapoint come world cup time unfortunately for group A . I can see them losing one game in the pools at best but they wont lose to both England and Wales that much is near certain . Imo the team with the higher chance of dropping out is Wales simply because of Fiji. I dont doubt Wales can and I think will beat England in the pool game based purely on unrelenting passion which will overcome most .But they wont put up a big score v Fiji as they've proved time and time again . England has an equal chance of beating the Aussies which leaves it at 1 all for the three teams and puts it down to points difference in which case the Aussies will top the group . I'm probably wrong to be sure but i doubt any of the three teams will leave the pool games undefeated .

Apart from the last time we faced them in a World Cup (the last one) when we beat them 66-0?

But still, I don't see us getting to the quarters. Just a gut feeling.

True buts thats more of an anomaly than anything . since 2000 there've been two blowout victories for Wales then a loss a draw and multiple tight wins

SA and Wales thrashed both Fiji and Namibia, and struggled to put away a strong Samoa. There was one point between the teams when we played the Boks. I'd say it was a reflection of the form of both teams at the time rather than an anomaly. Wales were one of the highest scoring teams in the pool stages in that world cup.

I see Wales going out in 2015, I think the form of Aus is key. If it wasn't for Joubert making up his own rules at the breakdown as he so often does then Australia could have been 4 losses from 4 in the autumn. If they don't improve they could be the ones to go out, [/b]I can't see it being England for a number of reasons.

Yes I think most of us can guess one of the reasons.

Uruguay & Fiji it is then Wink

by DeludedOptimistorjustDave Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:18 am

beshocked wrote:Biltong
If it was Wales vs England then it would favour Wales.

It's England-Wales it is not 50/50 at Twickenham.
You talk about history - it's 36 wins, 18 losses and 8 draws at Twickenham for England.

Against the Aussies - 13 wins, 10 losses, 1 draw at Twickenham. Again England will be favourites.

England have home advantage and that's significant. They've also defeated their two world cup rivals in their previous trips to Twickenham so there will be no shortage of belief.

England and Australia have never failed to make at least the quarter finals - it would take a brave man to bet against either of them IMO.

At Twickenham only two away sides would start as favourites currently - the ABs and South Africa.

Flippin heck how deep do you want to dig? you can't use stats from yester year, stats if going to used should be when relevant players are still in the equation,so if this is used Wales have won twice at twickers with relevant players so the odds change considerably!
But who cares about stats they can be so misconstrued to favour what picture they want to paint.

For example everyone gets their bravery from their war hero grand father but no one inherited anything from their feckless uncle!!
Got to accept the bad points with the good.

by DeludedOptimistorjustDave Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:20 am

But what if a Walsh is put into this statiod equation? Run

by The Saint Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:19 am

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

Yes I think most of us can guess one of the reasons.

Uruguay & Fiji it is then

It would be a politically incorrect decision for England to get KO'd in the pool stages of the RWC. If it happened England would go and create their own RWC, it would be comparable to the Eurovision song contest.

by blackcanelion Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:47 am

DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:
beshocked wrote:Biltong
If it was Wales vs England then it would favour Wales.

It's England-Wales it is not 50/50 at Twickenham.
You talk about history - it's 36 wins, 18 losses and 8 draws at Twickenham for England.

Against the Aussies - 13 wins, 10 losses, 1 draw at Twickenham. Again England will be favourites.

England have home advantage and that's significant. They've also defeated their two world cup rivals in their previous trips to Twickenham so there will be no shortage of belief.

England and Australia have never failed to make at least the quarter finals - it would take a brave man to bet against either of them IMO.

At Twickenham only two away sides would start as favourites currently - the ABs and South Africa.

Flippin heck how deep do you want to dig? you can't use stats from yester year, stats if going to used should be when relevant players are still in the equation,so if this is used Wales have won twice at twickers with relevant players so the odds change considerably!
But who cares about stats they can be so misconstrued to favour what picture they want to paint.

For example everyone gets their bravery from their war hero grand father but no one inherited anything from their feckless uncle!!
Got to accept the bad points with the good.

It's great that everyone is positive. But the neutral supporter is going to unfortunately tend towards England and Australia. This doesn't mean Wales aren't a chance it just means given peoples experience watching these teams. Wales have a chance of beating England. It's not like they haven't done it before. But it is at Twickenham. That is a big ask. Wales have won there 3 times in the worlds cup era, all 3 times in the year following world cups, on balance you'd pick the home side. Although they've run Australia close, they are on a long streak of losses. So again they could win, Twickenham should be a virtual home game, a win would buck a fairly strong trend. Wales will beat Uruguay, they are a weak team. Fiji might be another matter. Fiji's record against Wales isn't too bad. This game should be unlike the last world cup or recent games in Wales, which makes picking the result a little more difficult. Whilst their draw is still more difficult than Wales, Fiji is less disadvantaged than 2011, unlike most June/November games they may have time to prepare as a squad, and unlike 2011 they may have their major players available. Whilst I'd still expect Wales to win, things could be interesting if Fiji choose to target this match. One of the issues is Wales only have a 4-5 day turn around from the England match, Fiji have a week. The draw sets up situation where the logical target games for Fiji are England and Wales (there's short turn around for the game against Australia).

by bedfordwelsh Thu Dec 11, 2014 5:59 pm

Home adavantage is always important and plays a huge factor but also the added pressure of home advantage, especially in the WC will be enormous and like has been said the expectation on England to qualify from the group for their WC could be very telling.

by LordDowlais Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:31 pm

blackcanelion wrote:
DeludedOptimistorjustDave wrote:
beshocked wrote:Biltong
If it was Wales vs England then it would favour Wales.

It's England-Wales it is not 50/50 at Twickenham.
You talk about history - it's 36 wins, 18 losses and 8 draws at Twickenham for England.

Against the Aussies - 13 wins, 10 losses, 1 draw at Twickenham. Again England will be favourites.

England have home advantage and that's significant. They've also defeated their two world cup rivals in their previous trips to Twickenham so there will be no shortage of belief.

England and Australia have never failed to make at least the quarter finals - it would take a brave man to bet against either of them IMO.

At Twickenham only two away sides would start as favourites currently - the ABs and South Africa.

Flippin heck how deep do you want to dig? you can't use stats from yester year, stats if going to used should be when relevant players are still in the equation,so if this is used Wales have won twice at twickers with relevant players so the odds change considerably!
But who cares about stats they can be so misconstrued to favour what picture they want to paint.

For example everyone gets their bravery from their war hero grand father but no one inherited anything from their feckless uncle!!
Got to accept the bad points with the good.

It's great that everyone is positive. But the neutral supporter is going to unfortunately tend towards England and Australia. This doesn't mean Wales aren't a chance it just means given peoples experience watching these teams. Wales have a chance of beating England. It's not like they haven't done it before. But it is at Twickenham. That is a big ask. Wales have won there 3 times in the worlds cup era, all 3 times in the year following world cups, on balance you'd pick the home side. Although they've run Australia close, they are on a long streak of losses. So again they could win, Twickenham should be a virtual home game, a win would buck a fairly strong trend. Wales will beat Uruguay, they are a weak team. Fiji might be another matter. Fiji's record against Wales isn't too bad. This game should be unlike the last world cup or recent games in Wales, which makes picking the result a little more difficult. Whilst their draw is still more difficult than Wales, Fiji is less disadvantaged than 2011, unlike most June/November games they may have time to prepare as a squad, and unlike 2011 they may have their major players available. Whilst I'd still expect Wales to win, things could be interesting if Fiji choose to target this match. One of the issues is Wales only have a 4-5 day turn around from the England match, Fiji have a week. The draw sets up situation where the logical target games for Fiji are England and Wales (there's short turn around for the game against Australia).

Oh, so I get what you are saying, it is all the more likley for Fiji to beat Wales, than it is for Wales to beat either England or Australia. You say Fiji's record against Wales isn't too bad, all because they beat us in the 2007 WC and had a draw with us another time, other than that Wales have beaten Fiji every single time, if you are using these conditions for Fiji to beat Wales, then the same reasons could be used for Wales to beat England and Australia, it's all ifs and buts, BUT, I will say one thing, Wales will not fear playing England at Twickenham, Wales will be going there and expecting to win, I have more confidence in the England V Wales game than I do with the Wales V Australia game, but there is another year to go yet, and seeing as I have lost my crystal ball, I will just wait and see what happens, and try and call it closer to the WC.

by LordDowlais Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:44 pm

Here you go, here's Wales record against Fiji:-

9th Nov 1985 Wales 40 v 3 Fiji
31st May 1986 Fiji 15 v 22 Wales
18th June 1994 Fiji 8 v 23 Wales
11th Nov 1995 Wales 19 v 15 Fiji
9th Nov 2002 Wales 58 v 14 Fiji
11th Nov 2005 Wales 11 v 10 Fiji
29th Sept 2007 Wales 34 v 38 Fiji
19th Nov 2010 Wales 16 v 16 Fiji
2nd OCT 2011 Wales 66 v 0 Fiji
15th Nov 2014 Wales 17 v 13 Fiji

Now considering we have been putting out weekend sides for most of those games our record against Fiji aint to bad either. Why is it that Wales record against Australia is looked at as a bad record, when the same record for Fiji against Wales is looked at as "not to bad" ?

by Sponsored content