Defining a team's chance to win the Rugby World Cup

A few months before the start of a world cup people start speculating on the odds of each team to win the Rugby World Cup, and though some factors are vital to take in consideration for success at the World Cup there are also historical values to be considered.

The path to a rugby world cup final is always a result of what happened at the pool stages and therefor the draw is of utmost importance to evaluate the path and opponents to win the cup.

In this upcoming rugby world cup there are two distinctive paths that will most likely play out, the one with New Zealand and South Africa and the other without them.

Why Should the path through them be avoided at all costs? Well regardless of form, coaches or injuries, these are the two sides who not only historically have been the two best teams over the last hundred years, but they also have a far suprior win ratio during world cups than any other team, both sit on 83% Australia sit in the third position as far as win ratio's are concerned.

For those teams who have historically struggled to beat South Africa, New Zealand and Australia it is vital that Australia are either eliminated during the pool play or at least relegated to the second position in their pool.

This will create a mirror image of the knock out matches of 2011 where the three Southern Hemisphere nations landed in the same side of the draw and left the other side open to a Northern Hemisphere indaba.

I believe when looking at historical facts that no Northern Hemisphere team will make the final if they landed on the wrong side of the draw, purely because beating the Southern Hemisphere giants in successive matches during the Rugby World Cup has never materialised.

So, in my humble opinion if Australia does land up in the SA and NZ half, the race is wide open for any team ranked in the top 8 or so to make the RWC final.

Predicting the outcome of a RWC final is of course an entirely different animal

It is useful to have winning % stats but it doesn't show that this Australia squad is not as formidable as previous world cups. If a NH team can slow the game down and take them on in the forwards they are very beatable. As NZ and SA are up to their usual standard I agree it shows they need to be avoided if possible.

I think most agree one semi is almost certain to be NZ v SA which means England, Wales, Ireland & France will be desperate to win their groups but I'm not sure the teams who make the other side of the draw would be desperate to avoid Australia.

The winners of Group A will probably play either Ireland or France in the semi. If I was Irish or French, I would rather play Australia than England at HQ in a world cup semi final. I would rather we (Scotland) played the aussies in the quarter than England (provided we don't lose to Samoa). Especially as Australia's strength in depth is possibly not as good as England's so winning their group would take more out of them.

Biltong wrote:I believe when looking at historical facts that no Northern Hemisphere team will make the final if they landed on the wrong side of the draw, purely because beating the Southern Hemisphere giants in successive matches during the Rugby World Cup has never materialised.

Would you not count 2007 as England being on the wrong side of the draw? The semi-final on that side was predicted to be Aus v NZ, they were the pool winners.

Plus, no team has consecutively beaten 2 SH in the World Cup, including a SH team. Unless you were including them in the sentence?

I think the only time a team has beaten two of the southern hemisphere in a World Cup tournament was England in 2003, but those matches were not consecutive.

michael, South Africa also beat New Zealand and Australia in the 1995 RWC, but not consecutive matches.

2007 didn't pan out that England had to play two SH teams in succession though.

weegie Wizard, one thing zi have come to expect come RWC time, is that Australia regardless of form prior to the RWC will always be a challenge, the fact that they have won two world cups and have a 76% success ratio in RWC confirms that.

I would argue they have a 76% win ratio in RWC because at previous tournaments they have had a very good team. They have been in the running in the tri-nations and I think even won it just before the last world cup.

The impression I have got from the last 2/3yrs in the Rugby Championship is that Australia are adrift of the other 2 by quite a distance. Am I overestimating the gap?

Biltong, my point for 2007 was I don't think there is a wrong side. You can have a supposedly easier route, but individually matches can go anyway on the day. No team has beaten two SH teams in succession in a World Cup. So it is very hard to do - even for the SH.

Have South Africa ever lost a semi-final? I don't think they have off the top of my head.

We have lost two quarter finals, one against England in 2003, and the one last time against Bryce Lawrence, although I am told we were playing Oz.

We also lost a semi against in 1999

If you look at this RWC I think there are distinctly two sides, a NH one and a SH one

Biltong wrote:weegie Wizard, one thing zi have come to expect come RWC time, is that Australia regardless of form prior to the RWC will always be a challenge, the fact that they have won two world cups and have a 76% success ratio in RWC confirms that.

I agree - they tend to pull their best performances out of the bag for the RWC, particularly against NZ. They're like a more consistent version of France... However, it does have to be said that this time they are coming into the tournament in more disarray than they have in the past, while actually having quite a strong squad on paper. Their pack is a bit meatier than traditional Australian packs, and their backline is a threat to anyone.

That said, their pack probably isn't a match for England's - especially not once subs come into it - so a lot depends on whether they can maintain their winning streak over Wales. The NH sides will probably all be hoping that they end up second in their pool and so go into the mix with NZ and SA.

Think a SA vs NZ semi is bad for our chances. Even if we win that, it would almost certainly be a war, and the come down from beating NZ in a wold cup match (we last did that in '95?) would not give us a great chance for the final.

There is something fundamentally wrong with a tournament when the draw has such a major affect on who the winner will be.

Ireland are fourth favourites because they have supposedly a favourable draw, despite never having made a semi final nor beaten the All Blacks. If they managed a couple of knockout wins and lifted the trophy, are they really the best team in the world? Would those SH nations who assume natural supremacy simply dismiss this year's tournament as devalued due to an aberration in the draw - I suspect so.

What about France? They have only failed to make a semi-final once in the tournament's history and are in a favourable group (unlike Wales) yet they're below them in the betting. If Australia always get themselves together for a RWC it is amazing that France are being dismissed who generally do the same.

The only constant to be relied upon is that NZ and SA will be hard to beat - unless it's by each other. In that regard why didn't World Rugby ensure that they were in opposite halves of the draw? Was it to ensure "the race is wide open for any team ranked in the top 8 or so to make the RWC final"?

I suspect so.

Biltong wrote:We have lost two quarter finals, one against England in 2003, and the one last time against Bryce Lawrence, although I am told we were playing Oz.

We also lost a semi against in 1999

2003 was NZ v SA I think, England won the group game v SA.

How could I forget SA lost the semi final in 1999 - you beat England in the QF.

The Great Aukster wrote:There is something fundamentally wrong with a tournament when the draw has such a major affect on who the winner will be.

I'd say that applies to all tournaments with seedings in. Look at the European pages with people whinging about groups of death. Everyone seems to want it easier for the big teams to get to the finals/ semi finals. I think part of a tournament should have a random draw. Would remove any accusations of favourable route to a final.

In a world cup, I suppose the argument is for logistical purposes, but if the venue is decided in advance, I don't see what the issue is. Teams can scout hotels/ training areas beforehand. Its not like the host isn't decided far in advance anyway, and this year its either London or Cardiff from the QFs. Hardly a long journey.

Biltong wrote:We have lost two quarter finals, one against England in 2003, and the one last time against Bryce Lawrence, although I am told we were playing Oz.

We also lost a semi against in 1999

That was a pool game.

Yeah sorry, I am getting old

It doesn't merit any over analysis. There aren't enough competitors with a chance of winning it to worry. OK, there are 8 "possible" teams with a shout, but we all know that only one of 4 or 5 will win it. The seedings are decided way too early.

Historically the best three WC teams have won 6 out of 7 and given that they are all SH, 2 are going to end up on the same side of the draw. Fact.

MichaelT wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:There is something fundamentally wrong with a tournament when the draw has such a major affect on who the winner will be.

I'd say that applies to all tournaments with seedings in. Look at the European pages with people whinging about groups of death. Everyone seems to want it easier for the big teams to get to the finals/ semi finals. I think part of a tournament should have a random draw. Would remove any accusations of favourable route to a final.

In a world cup, I suppose the argument is for logistical purposes, but if the venue is decided in advance, I don't see what the issue is. Teams can scout hotels/ training areas beforehand. Its not like the host isn't decided far in advance anyway, and this year its either London or Cardiff from the QFs. Hardly a long journey.

It doesn't actually - for example Tennis seeding works perfectly well.

My point is that a team like Ireland who have never made the semi-finals before nor beaten the All Blacks nor indeed won any away series in the SH have an outside chance at lifting the trophy because of the draw primarily. Surely the most prestigious tournament in world rugby shouldn't be a hostage to fortune? However World Rugby need to have a 'balance' between the rugby producing countries in the SH and the rugby consuming countries in the NH and it is probably no coincidence that the 'draw' has thrown up only one all SH final thus far despite a 6:1 ratio of winners.

The grandiose titled World Rugby are maybe one step higher on the credibility ladder than FIFA but they really should have named themselves Elite Rugby instead. A win for anyone apart from the four names already engraved on the trophy would go some way to putting more heart into the backslapping they will undoubtedly indulge in after the event.

The Great Aukster wrote:There is something fundamentally wrong with a tournament when the draw has such a major affect on who the winner will be.

Ireland are fourth favourites because they have supposedly a favourable draw, despite never having made a semi final nor beaten the All Blacks. If they managed a couple of knockout wins and lifted the trophy, are they really the best team in the world? Would those SH nations who assume natural supremacy simply dismiss this year's tournament as devalued due to an aberration in the draw - I suspect so.

What about France? They have only failed to make a semi-final once in the tournament's history and are in a favourable group (unlike Wales) yet they're below them in the betting. If Australia always get themselves together for a RWC it is amazing that France are being dismissed who generally do the same.

The only constant to be relied upon is that NZ and SA will be hard to beat - unless it's by each other. In that regard why didn't World Rugby ensure that they were in opposite halves of the draw? Was it to ensure "the race is wide open for any team ranked in the top 8 or so to make the RWC final"?

I suspect so.

I'm sure yu didn't mean this as offensive as I took it, and that i'm being way too touchy with regards to these 2 points, but they are both certainly poppycock!
No team will dismiss this world cup if Ireland win it, becuse they will have had to have beaten the best to win it, simple as that! And the idea that World rugby will orchestrate groups to ensure there is a larger NH engagement?

It's pretty simple, if one half of the draw is 'harder' than the other, NZ will throw their last group game, drop to second and play the easier side of the draw surely...

The Great Aukster wrote:It doesn't actually - for example Tennis seeding works perfectly well.

Thats true, the variety in tennis finals and winners of major tournaments has varied amazingly over the last 10 years.

So your point specifically relates to Ireland. Thought you were making a general point about favourable draws and seedings. My mistake. Are you not contradicting yourself by saying it shouldn't be down to luck of the draw, but they need to do something so a new team wins. What would you propose?

Fanster wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:There is something fundamentally wrong with a tournament when the draw has such a major affect on who the winner will be.

Ireland are fourth favourites because they have supposedly a favourable draw, despite never having made a semi final nor beaten the All Blacks. If they managed a couple of knockout wins and lifted the trophy, are they really the best team in the world? Would those SH nations who assume natural supremacy simply dismiss this year's tournament as devalued due to an aberration in the draw - I suspect so.

What about France? They have only failed to make a semi-final once in the tournament's history and are in a favourable group (unlike Wales) yet they're below them in the betting. If Australia always get themselves together for a RWC it is amazing that France are being dismissed who generally do the same.

The only constant to be relied upon is that NZ and SA will be hard to beat - unless it's by each other. In that regard why didn't World Rugby ensure that they were in opposite halves of the draw? Was it to ensure "the race is wide open for any team ranked in the top 8 or so to make the RWC final"?

I suspect so.

I'm sure yu didn't mean this as offensive as I took it, and that i'm being way too touchy with regards to these 2 points, but they are both certainly poppycock!
No team will dismiss this world cup if Ireland win it, becuse they will have had to have beaten the best to win it, simple as that! And the idea that World rugby will orchestrate groups to ensure there is a larger NH engagement?

It's pretty simple, if one half of the draw is 'harder' than the other, NZ will throw their last group game, drop to second and play the easier side of the draw surely...

I'm not sure what there is to be offended about but hey...

The team that wins only has to beat the teams in front of it, and Biltong is suggesting an easy run in for one half of the draw because specifically NZ and SA aren't in it. In other words the implication is that the litmus test of a rugby team is the performance against these two teams specifically. The All Blacks didn't have to face SA last time neither did SA face them in 2007, England faced neither in 2003... so in the terms of this thread a team can win the RWC without having beaten the 'best'. Does it matter - not a jot.

As an Ireland fan I'd be in cloud cuckoo land with a victory, but I still wouldn't be thinking Ireland were in the same league as their SH counterparts because they're obviously not the best team. The gene pool of Test rugby is so small that teams play each other often enough to know exactly where supremacy lies without needing a knockout tournament every four years to prove it.

World Rugby are in a difficult position, because they need variety to attract more global interest but they don't seem to have the first notion of how to do that... and yet 85% of the finals have been winner take all shoot-outs between the NH and SH, while only 15% has been won by the NH side!

The idea of NZ throwing a game just to avoid another team is the closest thing to poppycock mentioned so far.

I assume you mean England didnt face either in the knock outs. Bit different then though as England were number 1 in the world.

MichaelT wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:It doesn't actually - for example Tennis seeding works perfectly well.

Thats true, the variety in tennis finals and winners of major tournaments has varied amazingly over the last 10 years.

So your point specifically relates to Ireland. Thought you were making a general point about favourable draws and seedings. My mistake. Are you not contradicting yourself by saying it shouldn't be down to luck of the draw, but they need to do something so a new team wins. What would you propose?

Fine, you don't like seeding - each to their own.

Regarding the Tournament I'd have it in two stages with the first one being held in lower tier nations (8x4 team pools), and the top 16 teams progressing to the second stage with only the top four teams getting a seeding.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I assume you mean England didnt face either in the knock outs. Bit different then though as England were number 1 in the world.

That's the thing though 7&1/2 the seeding is determined far too early. England had already proven they were the best team in the world before the RWC came along.

Yes it is. The nature of any cup though rather than a league format means the winner is not always the best team at that time. Just the way it is.

I do think its mental that South Africa and New Zealand will meet in the semi has opened things up massively. Given that I can see neither team throwing matches to avoid each other its more than likely these 2 superpowers will meet in the Semi's.

For Wales, England & Australia its bad news all round. All 3 teams have their work cut out just to get out of the pool's but essentially coming second can potentially mean a qtr final exit. Any side topping their group is probably looking at Ireland at the Semi's. Who that will be I have no idea. They have a fairly good record against England, Wales & Australia and certainly wont fear any of them.

In truth I actually think Ireland have the best chance they have ever had to make a final. Given that whoever they end up against will no doubt been through a nightmare scenario of matches could potentially mean those players could be fairly banged up at that stage. Dare I say that Ireland could win this world cup, possibly. Given the draw I really don't think they will ever get a better chance than this. Add into the fact that if that turns out to be the case in the final they probably will have home supporters advantage. The more I think about it, could they be favourites for this tournament?

The way I see it, from most likely winners to least likely

1. New Zealand
2. England
3. South Africa
4. Ireland
5. Australia
6. Wales
7. Argentina
8. France
9. Scotland
10. Samoa
11. Italy and the other nine teams.

That Top 9 minus England, Australia or Wales will be the quarter-finalists. I think England, South Africa, New Zealand and Ireland will win their groups which leaves it poised nicely for a NH vs SH final

QFs

South Africa vs Australia
New Zealand vs France
Ireland vs Argentina
England vs Scotland

SFs
South Africa vs New Zealand
England vs Ireland

Final
New Zealand vs England

Winner
New Zealand

The Great Aukster wrote:There is something fundamentally wrong with a tournament when the draw has such a major affect on who the winner will be.

Ireland are fourth favourites because they have supposedly a favourable draw, despite never having made a semi final nor beaten the All Blacks. If they managed a couple of knockout wins and lifted the trophy, are they really the best team in the world? Would those SH nations who assume natural supremacy simply dismiss this year's tournament as devalued due to an aberration in the draw - I suspect so.

Yeah, but who cares about any of that. Knowing who the best team is what the rankings are for. The most appealing thing about Cup Rugby is that the best team doesn't always win! Having an open, exciting tournament where several teams could genuinely win it is much more interesting and opening the draw up is a good thing. If the point was just to determine who the best team was we'd have a league, or just give it to the All Blacks before it started every year. This isn't about that, its about capturing the imagination and therefore growing the audience for the game worldwide (and generating income for world rugby of course).

Big call notch. I certainly wouldn't predict a pool winner in England's, Australia's & Wales group. One bad result could end their hopes right out of the gate for any of those three. Pressure on England will be immense to top the group.

Injuries could factor in that pool as well and to be honest if England happen to lose Ford for example at Fly half it could potentially end any chances they have of getting into a final. In any other position England look in fairly good shape so could weather any losses but a Ford injury could spell disaster for Lancaster. Farrell is far to one dimensional and even though he kicks his points will probably hamper them. Cips probably wont even be there either. It will be the same for Wales & Australia's key players too and possibly even more so as they don't have the strength in depth in the forwards that England can call on.

If England lose that second match against Wales at home, I don't think they will even qualify. So there are a whole bunch of hurdles to overcome.

Notch wrote:The way I see it, from most likely winners to least likely

1. New Zealand
2. England
3. South Africa
4. Ireland
5. Australia
6. Wales
7. Argentina
8. France
9. Scotland
10. Samoa
11. Italy and the other nine teams.

That Top 9 minus England, Australia or Wales will be the quarter-finalists. I think England, South Africa, New Zealand and Ireland will win their groups which leaves it poised nicely for a NH vs SH final

QFs

South Africa vs Australia
New Zealand vs France
Ireland vs Argentina
England vs Scotland

SFs
South Africa vs New Zealand
England vs Ireland

Final
New Zealand vs England

Winner
New Zealand

That is pretty much how I see it, except for who the winner of the death pool will be. Truth be told
I think it can be anyone of them

Yeah, calling the Pool of Death is a big call and I freely admit I could be completely wrong about it! Just my opinion in the one pool which is probably too close to call

I'm sorry but I disagree with a lot of statements about who is 'best'.

For me the team who wins is best, it really is as simple as that, to claim a world cup is devalued is laughable, as is the claim world rugby organised 2 different sides of draws to allow for more engagement!

If Ireland win the world cup it's because they were the best team in the world at the world cup, if they beat NewZealand in the final having played only teams ranked lower than them up until that point then they will have beated NZ and proved themsleves better.

There is no define right for who is 'best', whoever is better on the day is best!

Like whoever wins the FA Cup is the best team in England.

Nope, but whoever wins the FA cup was definitely the best team in the FA cup!

No it doesnt. Thats the beauty of cups the best team doesnt always win. Look at Man City vs Wigan a couple of years back.

SA will lose to Samoa

I see the quarters turning out like this:

England v Samoa
Wales v SA
NZ v Ireland
France v Argentina

Gwlad wrote:SA will lose to Samoa

Ok, I will bite

It is not impossible, after all if we can lose to Wales, then anything is possible, eh?

No 7&1/2 wrote:No it doesnt. Thats the beauty of cups the best team doesnt always win. Look at Man City vs Wigan a couple of years back.

So define the word 'best' as in your dictionary...

My definition is the team that wins is the best, if Ireland win the RWC they will have been the best team at the RWC, it really is as simple as that.

Biltong wrote:

Gwlad wrote:SA will lose to Samoa

Ok, I will bite

It is not impossible, after all if we can lose to Wales, then anything is possible, eh?

It's not out of the ordinary to lose to a team that can often win the European competition.

What is out of the ordinary is SA's reaction to Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC. I hope there's no more of that this year.

Cyril wrote:I see the quarters turning out like this:

England v Samoa
Wales v SA
NZ v Ireland
France v Argentina

The Saint wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Gwlad wrote:SA will lose to Samoa

Ok, I will bite

It is not impossible, after all if we can lose to Wales, then anything is possible, eh?

It's not out of the ordinary to lose to a team that can often win the European competition.

What is out of the ordinary is SA's reaction to Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC. I hope there's no more of that this year.

For a rugby mad country and the public admittance from Bryce Lawrence himself, nothing was out of the ordinary


People vented their anger, sure some went a bit too far.

Bryce Lawrence (insert angry emoji here)(tearful emoji here)(confused emoji here).

Biltong wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Gwlad wrote:SA will lose to Samoa

Ok, I will bite

It is not impossible, after all if we can lose to Wales, then anything is possible, eh?

It's not out of the ordinary to lose to a team that can often win the European competition.

What is out of the ordinary is SA's reaction to Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC. I hope there's no more of that this year.

For a rugby mad country and the public admittance from Bryce Lawrence himself, nothing was out of the ordinary


People vented their anger, sure some went a bit too far.

Maybe you people are a bit touchy. Who would even get wound up by someone saying SA will lose to Samoa...

The Saint wrote:

Biltong wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Gwlad wrote:SA will lose to Samoa

Ok, I will bite

It is not impossible, after all if we can lose to Wales, then anything is possible, eh?

It's not out of the ordinary to lose to a team that can often win the European competition.

What is out of the ordinary is SA's reaction to Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC. I hope there's no more of that this year.

For a rugby mad country and the public admittance from Bryce Lawrence himself, nothing was out of the ordinary


People vented their anger, sure some went a bit too far.

Maybe you people are a bit touchy. Who would even get wound up by someone saying SA will lose to Samoa...

What in my response to my dear rival Gwlad makes you think I was upset?

You bite.

The Saint wrote:You bite.

that wasn't even a nibble

Biltong wrote:

Gwlad wrote:SA will lose to Samoa

Ok, I will bite

"Ok, I will bite" - not "I will nibble" exactly is it...

The Saint wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Gwlad wrote:SA will lose to Samoa

Ok, I will bite

"Ok, I will bite" - not "I will nibble" exactly is it...

.



as in respond, seriously?

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No it doesnt. Thats the beauty of cups the best team doesnt always win. Look at Man City vs Wigan a couple of years back.

So define the word 'best' as in your dictionary...

My definition is the team that wins is the best, if Ireland win the RWC they will have been the best team at the RWC, it really is as simple as that.

Best in this sense for me would be over a period of time. NZ are the best team I doubt anything at the WC will change that in most peoples eyes. Individual wins mean little. Its fantasic to win the world cup but it doesnt mean you re the best in the world.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No it doesnt. Thats the beauty of cups the best team doesnt always win. Look at Man City vs Wigan a couple of years back.

So define the word 'best' as in your dictionary...

My definition is the team that wins is the best, if Ireland win the RWC they will have been the best team at the RWC, it really is as simple as that.

Best in this sense for me would be over a period of time. NZ are the best team I doubt anything at the WC will change that in most peoples eyes. Individual wins mean little. Its fantasic to win the world cup but it doesnt mean you re the best in the world.

Of course you are at that time and place; you've beaten all comers on an equal footing to become Champions of the world, QED you are the best in the world.