AUSTRALIA, ENGLAND, WALES. One will not go through.

First topic message reminder :

I'm an England fan.
Just get that out there.

I have had lots of fretful moments thinking about our RWC group since it was announced.
Some of the fog may have cleared on a Friday Cardiff night, along with the showsmoke, the booing, the Hwyl, and the fuzzy heads.

Harsh, but one of these three greats has to go out of the RWC early, such is the luck of the seedings.
But which one will fail to make it ?

England and Australia have to be favourites to go through at this stage. England have home advantage and beat Wales pretty well in the second half last Friday night. I can't see Wales reversing that form at Twickenham. Would possibly have fancied Wales over Australia if it was at the Millennium Stadium but not at Twickenham.

Still doubt like bonus points, especially in the World Cup were you are only playing four games. There were a couple of games in the last tournament that were dead rubbers because of bonus points but without them teams would have still had something to play for.

cb wrote:It was a really stupid idea to seed the teams so early after the last world cup (or was it before the last world cup?).  Anyone of Wales, England, or Australia could fail to progress, and even Fiji are not without hope.  On the day a match could be decided by strange things, for example a red card.

Perhaps they should take a leaf out of Fifa's book and make the draw six months before the tournament rather than three years before. They could they make it a bigger deal, bring some attention/ publicity to the sport and tournament and you would know all the teams taking part.

sportform wrote:England and Australia have to be favourites to go through at this stage. England have home advantage and beat Wales pretty well in the second half last Friday night. I can't see Wales reversing that form at Twickenham. Would possibly have fancied Wales over Australia if it was at the Millennium Stadium but not at Twickenham.

Still doubt like bonus points, especially in the World Cup were you are only playing four games. There were a couple of games in the last tournament that were dead rubbers because of bonus points but without them teams would have still had something to play for.

Sport,

Funnily enough I think there will be less pressure on us with it being at Twickenham and that's why I think we will win that one but lose to England.

sportform wrote:

cb wrote:It was a really stupid idea to seed the teams so early after the last world cup (or was it before the last world cup?).  Anyone of Wales, England, or Australia could fail to progress, and even Fiji are not without hope.  On the day a match could be decided by strange things, for example a red card.

Perhaps they should take a leaf out of Fifa's book and make the draw six months before the tournament rather than three years before. They could they make it a bigger deal, bring some attention/ publicity to the sport and tournament and you would know all the teams taking part.

The reason the draw is done so far in advance is ticketing and tv. World Rugby (IRB as was) relies almost entirely on the income from the RWC, which places a lot of commercial pressure on the host country. That means that the schedule has to get the big games in the big venues in the key weekend slots so that they can be sell-outs and attract the best tv revenue.

FIFA's got more flexibility in that respect, since it knows that it will be able to sell out most games, regardless of who plays whom. There are more fans, and more teams capable of making the knockout rounds. So they can do it closer to the event. For as long as rugby has a niche following and 10 or so teams that will dominate the pool stages, it will need the extra time for planning.

Not sure I follow this - they can probably pretty much work out that the games between the top 2 seeds from each pool will be big ones and then the qtrs onwards and they know how many of those there are and which venues they have to work with so surely they could plot the actual teams into the schedule closer than 3 years out? Even 1 year out would be much better than the current system.

Poorfour wrote:

sportform wrote:

cb wrote:It was a really stupid idea to seed the teams so early after the last world cup (or was it before the last world cup?).  Anyone of Wales, England, or Australia could fail to progress, and even Fiji are not without hope.  On the day a match could be decided by strange things, for example a red card.

Perhaps they should take a leaf out of Fifa's book and make the draw six months before the tournament rather than three years before. They could they make it a bigger deal, bring some attention/ publicity to the sport and tournament and you would know all the teams taking part.

The reason the draw is done so far in advance is ticketing and tv. World Rugby (IRB as was) relies almost entirely on the income from the RWC, which places a lot of commercial pressure on the host country. That means that the schedule has to get the big games in the big venues in the key weekend slots so that they can be sell-outs and attract the best tv revenue.

FIFA's got more flexibility in that respect, since it knows that it will be able to sell out most games, regardless of who plays whom. There are more fans, and more teams capable of making the knockout rounds. So they can do it closer to the event. For as long as rugby has a niche following and 10 or so teams that will dominate the pool stages, it will need the extra time for planning.

Its also about a lot of the practical things like where the teams can be based for their pool matches, accommodation, group flights, training grounds, a good chance to bring in the local communities to support those sides likely to be around etc. Pre 2011 there was a huge amount of work going on behind the scenes during the period long before the event by volunteers etc.

I have got no issue with the draw, it reflects where we were in the rankings at the time of the draw and if you want to win the WC you have to beat the best anyway.

I also think whoever comes out of this group is battle hardened for the rest of the tournament.

A am also not overly despondent about Wales' chances of qualifying. On balance with recent results and moment would suggest we are the favourites not to go through. However Wales are unlikely to play that poorly again (subject to us finding a scrummaging LH or there being a SH ref for the england game :-) ) I think from that gae on Friday the only two players that would give England a performance over and above what we saw is Tuilagi and Lawes.

I still think all encounters between the big three will be close and I still believe Wales can qualify even if we are not favourites

where are the matches played , especially the welsh ones ? in wales ?

Between those three I think they're all at Twickenham. I think Wales' other games are at the MS. Not sure about Australia's other games

alive555 wrote:where are the matches played , especially the welsh ones ? in wales ?

We play England and Australia at Twickenham then Georgia and Fiji in the MS. For what it's worth I think all games for every should be played in England after all it's their World Cup

Anything could happen on the day.

a. England v Wales - most recent results

6 February 2015
16 – 21 England

9 March 2014
29 – 18 England

16 March 2013
30 – 3 Wales

25 February 2012
12 – 19 Wales

13 August 2011
19 – 9 Wales

6 August 2011
23 – 19 England

b. Australia v Wales - most recent results

8 November 2014
28 – 33 Australia

30 November 2013
26 – 30 Australia

1 December 2012
12 – 14 Australia

23 June 2012
20 – 19 Australia

16 June 2012
25 – 23 Australia

9 June 2012
27 – 19 Australia

c. England v  Australia - most recent results

29 November 2014
26 – 17 England

2 November 2013
20 – 13 England

17 November 2012
14 – 20 Australia

13 November 2010
35 – 18 England

19 June 2010
20 – 21 England

12 June 2010
27 – 17 Australia

*****
Er. Doesn't look good for Wales.

Heaf wrote:Not sure I follow this - they can probably pretty much work out that the games between the top 2 seeds from each pool will be big ones and then the qtrs onwards and they know how many of those there are and which venues they have to work with so surely they could plot the actual teams into the schedule closer than 3 years out?  Even 1 year out would be much better than the current system.

By 1 year out, they'd already sold the tickets for RWC 2015, Heaf. You can't put that much closer in or the accommodation and travel becomes much more challenging to plan, so you need the schedule in place for then. You also probably need to communicate the schedule a minimum of 6 months prior to selling the tickets to let people work out their travel, and it takes some time before that to work out the scheduling - not least because you have to find the venues.

It's not as simple as "the games between the top 2 seeds from each pool will be the big ones" - because the attraction of a pool can vary hugely depending on who is in it. There are probably 10 teams that have a realistic shot at the QFs - NZ, SA, Aus, Eng, Fra, Ire, Wal, Sco, Arg, Samoa, which means that 2 pools will have 3 of them in it.

The schedule for RWC 2015 is quite clever - France play most of their games in London, for easy access from across the channel - except for their game against Ireland, which is in the Millennium for both capacity and easy access from across the Irish sea. Scotland play two games at St James Park, Italy play two games in London, and New Zealand play in Wembley, the Olympic Stadium and the Millennium Stadium, plus one in St James Park.

You couldn't plan that without knowing who'd be playing whom.

Gwlad wrote:Well done OP you figured out that one of these three teams will not go through and are now speculating on who that will be 9 months before the competition. What a simply enthralling thread.

Yes, almost as enthralling as when some complete tool posted that the RAC were camped out at Leigh Delamere services on the M4 ready to give assistance to England's 'broken chariot'.

I think Wales will prefer being underdogs.

They went into the game at the Milennium Stadium as the favourites, being talked up by the media, Gatland with his farcical mind games, the petulant battle over who would go out of the tunnel first....

Against Australia and England they will be the underdogs so less expectation, both Australia and England will be under much more pressure. England because they are hosts and have now won home and away vs Wales in their last two matches. Australia because they haven't lost to Wales in a long time -will expect to win yet again in London.

Wales have not become a bad side overnight - they are capable of beating England and Australia - we should not write them off.

beshocked wrote:I think Wales will prefer being underdogs.

They went into the game at the Milennium Stadium as the favourites, being talked up by the media, Gatland with his farcical mind games, the petulant battle over who would go out of the tunnel first....

Against Australia and England they will be the underdogs so less expectation, both Australia and England will be under much more pressure. England because they are hosts and have now won home and away vs Wales in their last two matches. Australia because they haven't lost to Wales in a long time -will expect to win yet again in London.

Wales have not become a bad side overnight - they are capable of beating England and Australia -  we should not write them off.

I think Wales are a good side. But, they are predictable and wont get away with it for much longer. They played the exact same game in the AI's and were beaten by Australia, they beat a SA that for some reason, misfired badly that day. Apart from almost disengenuously getting the SH monkey off their backs with that win, it proved to be down to earth again, when a less than 1st choice England showed up, in Cardiff and showed them how to dog out crucial wins.

Wales are capable of beating the likes of England and Australia, but carry on as they are, and it will only be if their opposition has a bad day at the office. I'm willing to bet Scotland give them something to think about this weekend, and then its an away trip to Paris.... lets see what that does regarding Gatland's gameplan and team confidence.

beshocked wrote:
Wales have not become a bad side overnight - they are capable of beating England and Australia -  we should not write them off.

No, they're not a bad side and haven't been since before the last RWC. But what they do look like at the moment is a side with some very specific weaknesses and no obvious way to address them. Stop the scrum and stop them at the breakdown, don't give kickable penalties and keep discipline in attack and they find it very hard to break down. They are also vulnerable to injury, particularly in the front row.

Unless Gatland has a plan B that he's barely hinted at, they're going into a tough pool with both England and Australia holding the whip hand.

beshocked wrote:

Wales have not become a bad side overnight - they are capable of beating England and Australia -  we should not write them off.

Spot on. People seem to forget that when Gatland had the players for a few months in the build up to the last world cup he worked wonders with them. Not dissimilar to the way he repeatedly got Wasps firing at exactly the right point in the season. I'm expecting no less this time round.

Big wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Wales have not become a bad side overnight - they are capable of beating England and Australia -  we should not write them off.

Spot on.  People seem to forget that when Gatland had the players for a few months in the build up to the last world cup he worked wonders with them.   Not dissimilar to the way he repeatedly got Wasps firing at exactly the right point in the season.  I'm expecting no less this time round.

We cant keep waiting until tournaments are under way though we have to hit the ground running not wait till after having a wake up call etc etc

As it stands though Wales will have to depend on (A) finding the forwards or making the ones they have stand up to the England tight 5. (B) being absolutely faultless on defense. Added to that if they are going to use North/Cuthbert they are going to have to work very hard to find the space for these guys to get some momentum going before hitting contact.

Cuthburt had a great game vs England 2 years ago, but the last two occasions he has been forgettable. This last time one nice try and some nice kicking but the number of times they threatened the England line was once.

Poorfour wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Wales have not become a bad side overnight - they are capable of beating England and Australia -  we should not write them off.

No, they're not a bad side and haven't been since before the last RWC. But what they do look like at the moment is a side with some very specific weaknesses and no obvious way to address them. Stop the scrum and stop them at the breakdown, don't give kickable penalties and keep discipline in attack and they find it very hard to break down. They are also vulnerable to injury, particularly in the front row.

Unless Gatland has a plan B that he's barely hinted at, they're going into a tough pool with both England and Australia holding the whip hand.

Couldn't you apply that to pretty much every side? Be it Australia or South Africa?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Wales have not become a bad side overnight - they are capable of beating England and Australia -  we should not write them off.

No, they're not a bad side and haven't been since before the last RWC. But what they do look like at the moment is a side with some very specific weaknesses and no obvious way to address them. Stop the scrum and stop them at the breakdown, don't give kickable penalties and keep discipline in attack and they find it very hard to break down. They are also vulnerable to injury, particularly in the front row.

Unless Gatland has a plan B that he's barely hinted at, they're going into a tough pool with both England and Australia holding the whip hand.

Couldn't you apply that to pretty much every side? Be it Australia or South Africa?

No, I don't think so. Australia have won plenty of matches despite a ropy scrum by virtue of having backs who can create something out of nothing. The All Blacks usually have an efficient scrum but it's their ability to make a team play where they want them to that wins them matches. The current South Africa squad I am less familiar with but they have a bit more guile in their backline than the Wales we saw on Friday.

That said, it feels to me as if Australia are quite reliant on their breakdown - in the last couple of games, Robshaw and Wood have kept Hooper quiet and that's helped to contain Australia's game as a whole.

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:I think Wales will prefer being underdogs.

They went into the game at the Milennium Stadium as the favourites, being talked up by the media, Gatland with his farcical mind games, the petulant battle over who would go out of the tunnel first....

Against Australia and England they will be the underdogs so less expectation, both Australia and England will be under much more pressure. England because they are hosts and have now won home and away vs Wales in their last two matches. Australia because they haven't lost to Wales in a long time -will expect to win yet again in London.

Wales have not become a bad side overnight - they are capable of beating England and Australia -  we should not write them off.

I think Wales are a good side. But, they are predictable and wont get away with it for much longer. They played the exact same game in the AI's and were beaten by Australia, they beat a SA that for some reason, misfired badly that day. Apart from almost disengenuously getting the SH monkey off their backs with that win, it proved to be down to earth again, when a less than 1st choice England showed up, in Cardiff and showed them how to dog out crucial wins.

Wales are capable of beating the likes of England and Australia, but carry on as they are, and it will only be if their opposition has a bad day at the office. I'm willing to bet Scotland give them something to think about this weekend, and then its an away trip to Paris.... lets see what that does regarding Gatland's gameplan and team confidence.

Even when Wales beat a team fair and square it has to be because that side 'misfired badly that day'

Such obvious bias is hilarious.

Wales beat SA by getting the ball wide very quickly, a subtle but significant departure from Warrrenball which worked a treat and should be employed more often

Gwlad wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:I think Wales will prefer being underdogs.

They went into the game at the Milennium Stadium as the favourites, being talked up by the media, Gatland with his farcical mind games, the petulant battle over who would go out of the tunnel first....

Against Australia and England they will be the underdogs so less expectation, both Australia and England will be under much more pressure. England because they are hosts and have now won home and away vs Wales in their last two matches. Australia because they haven't lost to Wales in a long time -will expect to win yet again in London.

Wales have not become a bad side overnight - they are capable of beating England and Australia -  we should not write them off.

I think Wales are a good side. But, they are predictable and wont get away with it for much longer. They played the exact same game in the AI's and were beaten by Australia, they beat a SA that for some reason, misfired badly that day. Apart from almost disengenuously getting the SH monkey off their backs with that win, it proved to be down to earth again, when a less than 1st choice England showed up, in Cardiff and showed them how to dog out crucial wins.

Wales are capable of beating the likes of England and Australia, but carry on as they are, and it will only be if their opposition has a bad day at the office. I'm willing to bet Scotland give them something to think about this weekend, and then its an away trip to Paris.... lets see what that does regarding Gatland's gameplan and team confidence.

Even when Wales beat a team fair and square it has to be because that side 'misfired badly that day'

Such obvious bias is hilarious.
Wales beat SA by getting the ball wide very quickly, a subtle but significant departure from Warrrenball which worked a treat and should be employed more often

Not really, I paraphrased it from articles both the BBC and Planet Rugby wrote after the match. I suppose you could take issue with them if you were offended by it.

After one game the truth is Wales aint that bad and England aint that good.

The sting is that we won away from home with our 'A' side.

However after over 3 years with SL it's still a bit hard to know what our test side actually is.

Poorfour wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Wales have not become a bad side overnight - they are capable of beating England and Australia -  we should not write them off.

No, they're not a bad side and haven't been since before the last RWC. But what they do look like at the moment is a side with some very specific weaknesses and no obvious way to address them. Stop the scrum and stop them at the breakdown, don't give kickable penalties and keep discipline in attack and they find it very hard to break down. They are also vulnerable to injury, particularly in the front row.

Unless Gatland has a plan B that he's barely hinted at, they're going into a tough pool with both England and Australia holding the whip hand.

Couldn't you apply that to pretty much every side? Be it Australia or South Africa?

No, I don't think so. Australia have won plenty of matches despite a ropy scrum by virtue of having backs who can create something out of nothing. The All Blacks usually have an efficient scrum but it's their ability to make a team play where they want them to that wins them matches. The current South Africa squad I am less familiar with but they have a bit more guile in their backline than the Wales we saw on Friday.

That said, it feels to me as if Australia are quite reliant on their breakdown - in the last couple of games, Robshaw and Wood have kept Hooper quiet and that's helped to contain Australia's game as a whole.

Australia might be often poor at the scrum but they generally do well at the breakdown. Do all those things you mentioned above and any team 'should' beat them. Granted you've said nothing about defence, but if it's just solid I'd expect the win.

Gwlad wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:I think Wales will prefer being underdogs.

They went into the game at the Milennium Stadium as the favourites, being talked up by the media, Gatland with his farcical mind games, the petulant battle over who would go out of the tunnel first....

Against Australia and England they will be the underdogs so less expectation, both Australia and England will be under much more pressure. England because they are hosts and have now won home and away vs Wales in their last two matches. Australia because they haven't lost to Wales in a long time -will expect to win yet again in London.

Wales have not become a bad side overnight - they are capable of beating England and Australia -  we should not write them off.

I think Wales are a good side. But, they are predictable and wont get away with it for much longer. They played the exact same game in the AI's and were beaten by Australia, they beat a SA that for some reason, misfired badly that day. Apart from almost disengenuously getting the SH monkey off their backs with that win, it proved to be down to earth again, when a less than 1st choice England showed up, in Cardiff and showed them how to dog out crucial wins.

Wales are capable of beating the likes of England and Australia, but carry on as they are, and it will only be if their opposition has a bad day at the office. I'm willing to bet Scotland give them something to think about this weekend, and then its an away trip to Paris.... lets see what that does regarding Gatland's gameplan and team confidence.

Even when Wales beat a team fair and square it has to be because that side 'misfired badly that day'

Such obvious bias is hilarious.

Wales beat SA by getting the ball wide very quickly, a subtle but significant departure from Warrrenball which worked a treat and should be employed more often

To be honest Wales were pretty awful against SA that day too. It was too poor sides making loads of mistakes, missing loads of opportunities to score tries, but Wales just managed to cross the line in front. But we were awful. And that was the irony - the number of times we've played well and lost (e.g. A few times IN South Africa; lots of times against Oz, etc.) and then the one that gets us the elusive 'W' was a stinker!

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Big wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Wales have not become a bad side overnight - they are capable of beating England and Australia -  we should not write them off.

Spot on.  People seem to forget that when Gatland had the players for a few months in the build up to the last world cup he worked wonders with them.   Not dissimilar to the way he repeatedly got Wasps firing at exactly the right point in the season.  I'm expecting no less this time round.

We cant keep waiting until tournaments are under way though we have to hit the ground running not wait till after having a wake up call etc etc

I think we started the last RWC very well, a missed kick being the difference between win or losing one game in our group! We started last Fridays game well too, we just didn't play well in the second half.

I have a feeling that England have lost more matches to Wales that they ought to have won than vice versa. Wales will be underdogs at Twickenham but they are easily capable of giving England the hurry-up. Set piece dominance won't count for much if we don't take our chances and make bad decisions. Just ask the 1999 England team who lost at Wembley.

When a team relies too much on one player or two is when you get into trouble.

E.g. Wales need to stop relying on the boot of Halfpenny. Halfpenny is a world class kicker but he's human prone to mistakes.

Halfpenny missed a straightforward penalty vs England and it seemed to rock Wales IMO and give England confidence.

Welsh tactic seemed to rely on his boot but once England cut their disciplinary errors, Wales were cut off from a key supply of points. This has been mentioned by other posters.

You could throw that accusation at many teams.

Limited sides can win but to get to the next level you need more. NZ are the best side in the world because they are the complete package.

Wales need to reinvent themselves.


Barney mcgrew the side isn't as bad you make out.


Funny thing about England is that it was a good win vs Wales but they didn't score as many points as they could have - e.g. Haskell running into the post and England having a try ruled out for obstruction.

England created far more than Wales which is encouraging but more work to do for them - need to move on.

England have been very consistent under Lancaster in the 6 nations - 13 wins in 16 games but now it's time they get a GS.

BS I think a more critical aspect was that in the second half Wales started to make decisions that allowed England to flood their backline with forwards far more than they had in the first half. That improved your defence.

Englands first try was the turning point in the game. One where we should have realised that North was in not in any shape to continue and subbed him for Williams.

Wales failed to execute their game plan in the second half by making poor decisions, relying on halfpennys boot is a ridiculous misconception. How can you rely on England to give away penalties?

Wales were playing too much rugby in their own half, short phase play and turn overs toengland because we were not tying in the right defenders at the right time. Choosing shortened line outs when we wanted to tie in England's backrow was a ludicrous decision, not only did we lose line outs when we won them we had no platform.

I hope that second half did some good to our team. There was plenty of fodder for the strategists to analyse for this week.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Heaf wrote:Not a WUM. All 3 are in the IRB top 6 so a tough group, the toughest.
My point, which could be better made is that teams below IRB no 6 will go through and one top 6 seed from this group is certain to fail.
Ok this is partly the randomness of the seeding draw, but genuinely I'll feel sympathy for whichever team stumbles out so early.

Of course what makes this a joke it they weren't all top 6 at the time of the draw and the seeding wasn't random, it was a draw made in 2012, nearly 3 years before the tournament when at the time Wales were 9th in the world and England were 5th.

Precisely - it is just me or is it daft to select the groups that far out?  I can't work out why it needs to be that far in advance so I'd be delighted if someone could explain it ...[/quote]
The seeding were done far to early. Having said that the dates were known and if Wales go out they only have themselves to blame. They were not the ninth best team at the time. The put out weakened teams and lost to lowly ranked countries.[/quote]

Look at it this way, as things are going by the time the cup starts England will be ranked 3rd, Aus 5th and Wales 9th or thereabouts so the draw could well still get the same spread.

That aside the rankings and relative abilities of sides in the 10 do tend to stay fairly stable. Those 3 sides still remain in the "could beat anyone on their day" category. Its not anymore an unfair draw than the one that saw Wales and Samoa peak for the world cup last time around. Or the soccerball one that guarantees the hosts a top seeding even if they didnt deserve a place in the competition in the first place.

Previously the seeding was based on the previous competition (so 4 years out). Apparantly it was the unions that wanted to know well in advance so they could plan and prepare (Wales' plan has been to lull Australia into a false sense of security).

When you stop to think about what goes on in planning a tournament like this, it's not ridiculous to make the draw several years in advance.

The first tickets went on sale 18 months in advance (via the hospitality package sales), with the bulk of tickets being sold a year out and the schedule of matches was publicised about 2 years in advance. You can't go much later than that or travelling fans won't be able to organise their travel.

Prior to that, they had to secure venues and arrange a schedule that would ensure the best chances for fans to see their teams play (or to put it another way, maximum ticket sales). The RWC 2015 schedule is quite cute in that respect - France and Italy play several games in London for ease of access to the Continent, Scotland play several games at St James Park, Wales and Ireland play several games in the Millennium. Meanwhile, England play one game away from HQ (and Wales and Australia have to travel there - hosts' privilege) and other games are distributed around the country to maximise access.

You can't organise a schedule like that without knowing the major teams involved. It's not enough to say "oh, we'll put the top two seeds in each pool in one of the big stadia and spread the rest of the games around." For one thing, there will always be two third seeds who will be challenging to get out of the group. This time around we'd have seen Wales shoved into small venues when they are one of a few teams that can be pretty much guaranteed to sell out an 80,000 seater in England.

So you have to do the draw before you set the schedule, and before you negotiate the stadia you're going to use. That means it needs to be at least 2.5-3 years away from kick off.

Stupid stupid scheduling.....grrr

A Pool is a Pool. You dive in and take your chances.  
Some pools are shallow and you quickly find out that diving in was a mistake
Some have 'sharknados' in 'em.
Some have nothing at all wrong with them except you - 'cause you can't swim.

There's much too much fuss about Pools in all rugby contests.  Just get on with it folks, next time round you might share your pool with a bunch of minnows instead of sharks.  The luck of the draw.

SecretFly wrote:A Pool is a Pool. You dive in and take your chances.  
Some pools are shallow and you quickly find out that diving in was a mistake
Some have 'sharknados' in 'em.
Some have nothing at all wrong with them except you - 'cause you can't swim.

There's much too much fuss about Pools in all rugby contests.  Just get on with it folks, next time round you might share your pool with a bunch of minnows instead of sharks.  The luck of the draw.

Instead you wont, because teams are seeded and the pools are designed to give the AB the most favourable draw.

Any pool an AB team is in is a favourable one for them............  let's not overdo this constant grind that only for the 'Haka' is given to them for their psychological advantages, they'd have been a pretty ordinary nation in rugby terms these last 30 or so years.

No they wouldn't.  If they get bonuses its because they've earned them by beating the bejaysus out of most teams most of the time.  The bonus is that they're simply and usually better than anyone they'd meet in a pool.

Times might be a changing but that's the view looking backward into the past.

Jimpy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:A Pool is a Pool. You dive in and take your chances.  
Some pools are shallow and you quickly find out that diving in was a mistake
Some have 'sharknados' in 'em.
Some have nothing at all wrong with them except you - 'cause you can't swim.

There's much too much fuss about Pools in all rugby contests.  Just get on with it folks, next time round you might share your pool with a bunch of minnows instead of sharks.  The luck of the draw.

Instead you wont, because teams are seeded and the pools are designed to give the AB the most favourable draw.

I'd disagree, the All Blacks always seem to end up with the number one ranked team in their pool.

Yeah well, the number one enemy for the All Blacks at WCs IS always usually themselves!!!  Correct and well spotted Gooseberry

Gwlad wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:I think Wales will prefer being underdogs.

They went into the game at the Milennium Stadium as the favourites, being talked up by the media, Gatland with his farcical mind games, the petulant battle over who would go out of the tunnel first....

Against Australia and England they will be the underdogs so less expectation, both Australia and England will be under much more pressure. England because they are hosts and have now won home and away vs Wales in their last two matches. Australia because they haven't lost to Wales in a long time -will expect to win yet again in London.

Wales have not become a bad side overnight - they are capable of beating England and Australia -  we should not write them off.

I think Wales are a good side. But, they are predictable and wont get away with it for much longer. They played the exact same game in the AI's and were beaten by Australia, they beat a SA that for some reason, misfired badly that day. Apart from almost disengenuously getting the SH monkey off their backs with that win, it proved to be down to earth again, when a less than 1st choice England showed up, in Cardiff and showed them how to dog out crucial wins.

Wales are capable of beating the likes of England and Australia, but carry on as they are, and it will only be if their opposition has a bad day at the office. I'm willing to bet Scotland give them something to think about this weekend, and then its an away trip to Paris.... lets see what that does regarding Gatland's gameplan and team confidence.

Even when Wales beat a team fair and square it has to be because that side 'misfired badly that day'

Such obvious bias is hilarious.

Wales beat SA by getting the ball wide very quickly, a subtle but significant departure from Warrrenball which worked a treat and should be employed more often

To be fair, Wales were awful that day as well, SA just happened to be worse. That mistake by Scott Williams would have been game over for a more clinical side, or even SA on their normal days (an attacking scrum 5m out?). The amount of mistakes SA made in the last 15-20 minutes was so hilariously uncharacteristic of them.

At the end of the day the result is what counts and it might help psychologically, but I don't think anyone can take much from that performance,

I've been a Wales supporter for 60 years. Apart from the '70s Wales have usually played better against England when they're underdogs, which will no doubt be the case at Twickenham in the RWC. If England really are on the climb towards being world champions that won't make any difference. But are they, and are Wales as bad as so many people are making out? Maybe we should see what happens in the next four rounds of the 6 Nations.

optimist wrote:I've been a Wales supporter for 60 years. Apart from the '70s Wales have usually played better against England when they're underdogs, which will no doubt be the case at Twickenham in the RWC. If England really are on the climb towards being world champions that won't make any difference. But are they, and are Wales as bad as so many people are making out? Maybe we should see what happens in the next four rounds of the 6 Nations.

There are good players and a lot of muscle, but if you look at the last two games Wales have scored a total of one try against England, and basically have created no other chances, let alone scores, in 160 minutes of game time. Wales have only scored through kicks. Kicks count and we all know what 1/2p brings to the party, but that in itself must be a huge worry. Wales are not a bad side but the current England team knows how to deal with them.

optimist wrote:I've been a Wales supporter for 60 years. Apart from the '70s Wales have usually played better against England when they're underdogs, which will no doubt be the case at Twickenham in the RWC. If England really are on the climb towards being world champions that won't make any difference. But are they, and are Wales as bad as so many people are making out? Maybe we should see what happens in the next four rounds of the 6 Nations.

Wales are a good side - multiple Grand Slams and an RWC semi-final are testament to that. But they also aren't as good as they are repeatedly hyped up to be by the media, and they have some specific weaknesses that they have consistently been unable to address.

In essence, they are a team geared around penalties and quick ball. Get an edge in the scrum and the breakdown, bring big men onto the ball at speed and wait for the infringements. Build a lead and wait for the opposition to chase the game. Score tries when it breaks down. When you've got a kicker as good as Halfpenny, an aggressive back row and a front row that's good at milking penalties from the scrum, it's a valid strategy.

The question is, is that enough when there are now teams with scrums that are better suited to the new engagement laws and teams have learned to be efficient and disciplined at the breakdown? Does Gatland have a different set of tactics up his sleeve?

That should be Wales are were a good side.

optimist wrote:I've been a Wales supporter for 60 years. Apart from the '70s Wales have usually played better against England when they're underdogs, which will no doubt be the case at Twickenham in the RWC. If England really are on the climb towards being world champions that won't make any difference. But are they, and are Wales as bad as so many people are making out? Maybe we should see what happens in the next four rounds of the 6 Nations.

optimist I don't think anyone is saying Wales are bad. England are just generally a more consistent team than Wales and have been for some time.

Even in the last 3 years England have won 4 out of 5 games - that kind of consistency is very good but of course England get criticism for not going the full way and getting the GS.

Wales in comparison have fluctuated in form but have had a 3 GSs and a 6 nations title in the last 10 years.

England look odds on for 4 out of 5 again with 3 home games - might fall short against the Irish in Ireland (though in 2003 they tore the Irish to shreds).

Wales probably wouldn't want England's consistency though because England have no GS since 2003. Would be funny if England do get the GS as they have done quite well in RWC years - winning in 1991,1995, 2003 and 2011.

Plus an English GS is long overdue - too strong not to eventually.