Southern hemisphere dominance

First topic message reminder :

Read an interesting article today
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2536815-why-super-rugbys-exodus-wont-stunt-the-southern-hemispheres-dominance


Its half right. While the SH has traditionally dominated since professionalism, the gap has closed, big time. Take NZ out of it and there isn't a whole lot between a number of sides.


I think the gap will continue to close. The South Africans have to deal with quotas and a crumbling economy, the NRL have just signed a $1.7 billion TV contract in Australia and are increasing their salary cap by nearly 50% and the English clubs are going to join the French in picking the best players from super rugby.

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:I think 1995 is the only RWC where the eventual winner beat the other two SH giants

Also NZ dominated 1996 , in 1997/1998 SA had their run of 17 wins in succession

England beat SA and AUS in 03

True dat

beshocked wrote:

Biltong wrote:The draw on one side will most likely have all the contenders from the NH, so whoever performs best then will most likely play NZ in the final.

That is how I see it anyway.

Will depend on how Australia perform. If they can top Pool A they could make it to the final without facing SA or NZ - on the other hand if they are runners up they would face in all likelihood SA which would put the cat among the pigeons.

Would be funny and great if it's

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

That's my prediction.

Mine too. Hopefully it'll take the referees out of it: the IRB will have their north/south final.

I think Ireland will top their group, with France maybe coming third. We've expected France to come good for quite a while now and it's yet to happen. You're all comparing this France with the France from previous world cup cycles, which were different teams under a different coach. The one under Mad Marc had won a 6 Nations in Grand Slam fashion, and also notched up wins against NZ and SA. The current France has managed to beat Australia and England, lose to Italy and continue to finish fourth in the 6 Nations. I don't think they will be coming good any time soon, certainly not with Saint-Andre running the show.

When I think about it SA do look vulnerable for a change. But as it's SA they will be in the mix. NZ could probably still win the RWC even if the player drain took place tomorrow. Their depth right now is unreal.

mikey_dragon wrote:I think Ireland will top their group, with France maybe coming third. We've expected France to come good for quite a while now and it's yet to happen. You're all comparing this France with the France from previous world cup cycles, which were different teams under a different coach. The one under Mad Marc had won a 6 Nations in Grand Slam fashion, and also notched up wins against NZ and SA. The current France has managed to beat Australia and England, lose to Italy and continue to finish fourth in the 6 Nations. I don't think they will be coming good any time soon, certainly not with Saint-Andre running the show.

When I think about it SA do look vulnerable for a change. But as it's SA they will be in the mix. NZ could probably still win the RWC even if the player drain took place tomorrow. Their depth right now is unreal.

Only team I can see them putting SA out before SF will be Australia in a QF.

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:I think Ireland will top their group, with France maybe coming third. We've expected France to come good for quite a while now and it's yet to happen. You're all comparing this France with the France from previous world cup cycles, which were different teams under a different coach. The one under Mad Marc had won a 6 Nations in Grand Slam fashion, and also notched up wins against NZ and SA. The current France has managed to beat Australia and England, lose to Italy and continue to finish fourth in the 6 Nations. I don't think they will be coming good any time soon, certainly not with Saint-Andre running the show.

When I think about it SA do look vulnerable for a change. But as it's SA they will be in the mix. NZ could probably still win the RWC even if the player drain took place tomorrow. Their depth right now is unreal.

Only team I can see them putting SA out before SF will be Australia in a QF.

Ditto.

blackcanelion wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:I think Ireland will top their group, with France maybe coming third. We've expected France to come good for quite a while now and it's yet to happen. You're all comparing this France with the France from previous world cup cycles, which were different teams under a different coach. The one under Mad Marc had won a 6 Nations in Grand Slam fashion, and also notched up wins against NZ and SA. The current France has managed to beat Australia and England, lose to Italy and continue to finish fourth in the 6 Nations. I don't think they will be coming good any time soon, certainly not with Saint-Andre running the show.

When I think about it SA do look vulnerable for a change. But as it's SA they will be in the mix. NZ could probably still win the RWC even if the player drain took place tomorrow. Their depth right now is unreal.

Only team I can see them putting SA out before SF will be Australia in a QF.

Ditto.

That will be a huge game, SA has revenge on their minds and will have confidence that they have won more games than OZ with the current crop of players.

I don't think OZ will have the same fortune as last time round.

Australia do not appear as strong, and with less depth than usual. But as I said above (or actually on page 3 of this thread), appearances before the RWC frequently have been deceiving and non-predictive of RWC results. This has effected each major team at one time or another.

blackcanelion wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Biltong wrote:The draw on one side will most likely have all the contenders from the NH, so whoever performs best then will most likely play NZ in the final.

That is how I see it anyway.

Will depend on how Australia perform. If they can top Pool A they could make it to the final without facing SA or NZ - on the other hand if they are runners up they would face in all likelihood SA which would put the cat among the pigeons.

Would be funny and great if it's

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

That's my prediction.

Mine too. Hopefully it'll take the referees out of it: the IRB will have their north/south final.

If I was making ref predictions

Joubert
Owens
Poite
Clancy

Probably the least controversial options IMO.

England will want to avoid Steve Walsh, NZ and Ireland would want to avoid Wayne Barnes.

As far as I knoe Steve Walsh has retired

As long as we don't get Poite I am ok

doctor_grey wrote:Australia do not appear as strong, and with less depth than usual.  But as I said above (or actually on page 3 of this thread), appearances before the RWC frequently have been deceiving and non-predictive of RWC results.  This has effected each major team at one time or another.  

I'd say their pack is now quite impressive. Their strength in depth at lock especially is world class. With Hooper and Pocock they could really put the cat amongst the pigeons in this tournament. Their image as having powder puff forwards is a lot less so than in previous tournaments.

This weekend will be very interesting.

beshocked wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Biltong wrote:The draw on one side will most likely have all the contenders from the NH, so whoever performs best then will most likely play NZ in the final.

That is how I see it anyway.

Will depend on how Australia perform. If they can top Pool A they could make it to the final without facing SA or NZ - on the other hand if they are runners up they would face in all likelihood SA which would put the cat among the pigeons.

Would be funny and great if it's

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

That's my prediction.

Mine too. Hopefully it'll take the referees out of it: the IRB will have their north/south final.

If I was making ref predictions

Joubert
Owens
Poite
Clancy

Probably the least controversial options IMO.

England will want to avoid Steve Walsh, NZ and Ireland would want to avoid  Wayne Barnes.

Wales and probably most other NH teams will want to avoid Joubert. Unfortunately we have Joubert when we play Aus. Barnes is better IMO.

England had beaten NZ home AND away in the months leading up the 2003 world cup, infact they had won 15 consecutive games againt NZ, Australia and SA including winning away in all 3 countries. England went into the 2003 world cup as the best team in the world (probably the greatest NH team of all time) and duely won it.

blackcanelion wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I'm not so sure non-RWC results are entirely predictable in the RWC.  In fact, one could argue, prior success is almost a recipe for losing in the RWC.  

In the 2003 Bledisloe Cup the ABs put 50 points on the Wallabies.  50!  In Sydney.  Then the Wallabies beat the ABs in the RWC semis by 12 points.  And then came within extra time of winning the whole thing (thanks Saint Jonny!).  

In 2007, Ireland came in a strong second to France in the 6 Nations on points differential (only -4).  But in the RWC couldn't even get out of their own pool, including barely beating Georgia on a disputed non-try call which went against Georgia near the death (i was there and in shock).  Also the Boks came in last in the Tri-Nations that year (1 up, 3 down) but won the RWC.

In 2011, despite my vain attempts to put this out of mind, England won the 6 nations outright, then sucked the big potato in the RWC.  Further, France came in second and Wales 4th (4th!) in the 6 Nations, but either could/should have won the damn RWC.  To further my point in that RWC, Australia won the Tri-Nations with the ABs only winning 2 and losing 2.  Yet the ABs won the RWC.  Though I have to say in that final, in my opinion, the referee treated France the same as a sheep by a redneck farmer.    

Point being, there appears limited info one can take from results amongst the major teams in the year before the RWC.  This is not a reflection on anyone's chances.  Just that one never knows, and winning records prior to the RWC mean next to nada when the Big Kahuna comes around.  

Lordy mama, even England have a shot to win the RWC this year.  Maybe even better than in the past since they have managed to avoid winning the 6 Nations (snatching 2nd place from the jaws of victory in recent 6 Nations).  Clearly a criteria for success?  
(OK, maybe not, but that's a thread for another day)

Have to agree. The RWC is a knock out tournament. You can prepare and select well, but if you don't turn up on the day and your opposition does you could be out.

That being true... when have a team who won the tournament not been the best team in the world at the time/deserved it by beating all the other best teams in the world?

probably 2007 only, and then they were easily the 2nd best team in the world and thereafter stamped their authority as legitimate RWC winners.

One off games yes, luck of how the draw turns out yes but in truth the best teams always end up winning.

1987 Australia no 1 going in. NZ won, but didn't play Australia. SA couldn't compete. NZ dominated afterwards.
1991 Australia won. Didn't play France. SA didn't play. Australia probably No1 afterwards.
1995 SA won. Didn't play England. NZ dominant afterwards.
1999 Australia won. Didn't Play NZ or England. England dominant afterwards.
2003 England won. Didn't play NZ. NZ dominant afterwards.
2007 SA won. Didn't play NZ, Australia or France. NZ dominant afterwards
2011 NZ won. Didn't play SA, England, Wales or Ireland. NZ dominant afterwards

Point being it's knock out.

wrfc1980 wrote:England had beaten NZ home AND away in the months leading up the 2003 world cup, infact they had won 15 consecutive games againt NZ, Australia and SA including winning away in all 3 countries. England went into the 2003 world cup as the best team in the world (probably the greatest NH team of all time) and duely won it.

blackcanelion wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I'm not so sure non-RWC results are entirely predictable in the RWC.  In fact, one could argue, prior success is almost a recipe for losing in the RWC.  

In the 2003 Bledisloe Cup the ABs put 50 points on the Wallabies.  50!  In Sydney.  Then the Wallabies beat the ABs in the RWC semis by 12 points.  And then came within extra time of winning the whole thing (thanks Saint Jonny!).  

In 2007, Ireland came in a strong second to France in the 6 Nations on points differential (only -4).  But in the RWC couldn't even get out of their own pool, including barely beating Georgia on a disputed non-try call which went against Georgia near the death (i was there and in shock).  Also the Boks came in last in the Tri-Nations that year (1 up, 3 down) but won the RWC.

In 2011, despite my vain attempts to put this out of mind, England won the 6 nations outright, then sucked the big potato in the RWC.  Further, France came in second and Wales 4th (4th!) in the 6 Nations, but either could/should have won the damn RWC.  To further my point in that RWC, Australia won the Tri-Nations with the ABs only winning 2 and losing 2.  Yet the ABs won the RWC.  Though I have to say in that final, in my opinion, the referee treated France the same as a sheep by a redneck farmer.    

Point being, there appears limited info one can take from results amongst the major teams in the year before the RWC.  This is not a reflection on anyone's chances.  Just that one never knows, and winning records prior to the RWC mean next to nada when the Big Kahuna comes around.  

Lordy mama, even England have a shot to win the RWC this year.  Maybe even better than in the past since they have managed to avoid winning the 6 Nations (snatching 2nd place from the jaws of victory in recent 6 Nations).  Clearly a criteria for success?  
(OK, maybe not, but that's a thread for another day)

Have to agree. The RWC is a knock out tournament. You can prepare and select well, but if you don't turn up on the day and your opposition does you could be out.

That being true... when have a team who won the tournament not been the best team in the world at the time/deserved it by beating all the other best teams in the world?

probably 2007 only, and then they were easily the 2nd best team in the world and thereafter stamped their authority as legitimate RWC winners.

One off games yes, luck of how the draw turns out yes but in truth the best teams always end up winning.

1987 Australia no 1 going in. NZ won, but didn't play Australia. SA couldn't compete. NZ dominated afterwards.
1991 Australia won. Didn't play France. SA didn't play. Australia probably No1 afterwards.
1995 SA won. Didn't play England. NZ dominant afterwards.
1999 Australia won. Didn't Play NZ or England. England dominant afterwards.
2003 England won. Didn't play NZ. NZ dominant afterwards.
2007 SA won. Didn't play NZ, Australia or France. NZ dominant afterwards
2011 NZ won. Didn't play SA, England, Wales or Ireland. NZ dominant afterwards

Point being it's knock out.

To be fair to blackcanelion, NZ in 2007 went in as 3N champs 3 years in a row, Lions victors 3 zip, they world no. 1 side and had won 88% of their games in that RWC cycle. Thats probably the best record up to that point of any team leading up to a RWC in history.. better than NZ in 2011 and better than England in 2003... still went out in the QF even though leading up to the tournament they had no real injuries to complain about.

It is a genuine one off KO but yes, England did deserve it in 03.

Theres atually been a lot of good points made above, I certainly think SA have no easy route to the semi's, with England, Wales and Australia all capable of matching them, that quarter final is going to be a toss up no matter who plays SA (I don't see a group challenge to SA).

Also someone mentioned France finishing third, I would not be shocked whatsoever, this French team has shown little quality over the last 18 months, and have visibly struggled against Scotland, and Italy! The only players that look world class ar Fofana and Huget, and both are invisible in certain games. They have issues at 2, 8, 10 and I don't see a RWC where France makes an impression! There is potential there, but not this year.

RE referee's, I don't see too much problems, unless Joubert refs NZ then whoever they play might as well not bother coming out of the tunnel.

The problem for group A is that they have 3 huge matches to play.. they will have injuries, fatigue and that all favours their group B counterparts.

I don't think any side will go in too cold from group B... Samoa, Scotland and SA have enough amongst them to tune up regardless.

The problem will be mental for the runner up of group A. Regardless of what they say... it will be a huge downer to not get the "easier" route of topping the table.  Imagine you're England, you lose a match, win 2 huge battles and then have to face SA (a team who you haven't beaten in the last 12 outings home and away). Home advantage fine but twickenham can only hold 80,000 fans so home support or not it will be no more loud than last years test or the year before, or the year before that etc.

SA won't walk it but I think only AUS have the game to beat them at a RWC.

England
England are really going to miss Hartley & Tuilagi (one is their best hooker by far, the other is their only x factor player who can win games from nothing). Pollard is a far better kicker than Ford and has 10 yards on him come range too. Means that in a tight KO game if Ford can't keep up with Pollard they will quickly go behind and have to start chasing. Its how England lost to Ireland earlier this year and how I see them losing to SA in a tight matchup. Bissie, Louw, Brussow, Coetzee even Burger are great ruck operators.... Cole and maybe Robshaw are their only genuine equivalents. One on one I think SA are better.

Australia
The one team which has the game to ruffle SA. SA should dominate upfront but AUS always seem to be able to lap it up, never go too far behind. Their front five is a better unit then before, lineout looks steady and a backrow with Hooper and Pocock looks very dangerous.. one reason why I think AUS may shade ENG and WAL.

Wales
Beat a very fatigued SA in last AIs. Of that bok side expect a huge change in terms of lineups. Maybe 2 in the backline will survive, probably only 1. 4 in the pack should survive. Wales won't be at home and I expect the boks to really go into the game with vigour. They will want revenge. You know what to expect with Wales. SA will need to front up, if so Wales will not be able to answer them... their game fully relies on forwards dominance, take that out and they will be easy pickings. Can Wales dominate a fully fresh bok pack?

SA have shown in November and during the rugby championship that they are tactically quite naive and also too easy to outsmart. They will have to up their game or I reckon they will exit in the quarters.

Biltong wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:I think Ireland will top their group, with France maybe coming third. We've expected France to come good for quite a while now and it's yet to happen. You're all comparing this France with the France from previous world cup cycles, which were different teams under a different coach. The one under Mad Marc had won a 6 Nations in Grand Slam fashion, and also notched up wins against NZ and SA. The current France has managed to beat Australia and England, lose to Italy and continue to finish fourth in the 6 Nations. I don't think they will be coming good any time soon, certainly not with Saint-Andre running the show.

When I think about it SA do look vulnerable for a change. But as it's SA they will be in the mix. NZ could probably still win the RWC even if the player drain took place tomorrow. Their depth right now is unreal.

Only team I can see them putting SA out before SF will be Australia in a QF.

Ditto.

That will be a huge game, SA has revenge on their minds and will have confidence that they have won more games than OZ with the current crop of players.

I don't think OZ will have the same fortune as last time round.

SA will top their group for sure, with possibly Samoa as runners up (sorry Scotland). I think any of 3 NH teams along with Aus and NZ can beat SA in the KO stages, as SA could beat all these teams in the KO stages.

Yes Aus did have a helping hand from Bryce Lawrence last time around, so unless he's reffing (isn't he retired) Aus could be less fortunate. Right now Aus and SA look evenly matched.

fa0019 wrote:

Wales
Beat a very fatigued SA in last AIs. Of that bok side expect a huge change in terms of lineups. Maybe 2 in the backline will survive, probably only 1. 4 in the pack should survive. Wales won't be at home and I expect the boks to really go into the game with vigour. They will want revenge. You know what to expect with Wales. SA will need to front up, if so Wales will not be able to answer them... their game fully relies on forwards dominance, take that out and they will be easy pickings. Can Wales dominate a fully fresh bok pack?

We have done before on a few occasions. Fitness won't be an issue for Wales this time around, but we'd need all our best players to be available. So we'd need the likes of Jenkins, Hibbard/Baldwin, Lee/Francis, AWJ, Charteris/Ball, Lydiate/Moriarty, Warburton/Tipuric, Faletau/Baker. This would ensure we have good replacements. If we get the nudge on at scrum time like before, and learn how to better defend a Bok driving maul (I think we have since last summer) then the answer to your question would be yes. What does a fully fresh Bok pack with its best subs look like right now?

fa0019 I think most England fans would agree that Hartley did not have a particularly good 6 nations.

Losing the ill disciplined Hartley does leave a lack of experience but gives opportunity to LCD and George to stake a claim.

Joseph's performance at 13 in this year's 6 nations and Burrell's in last year's show that Manu wasn't missed that much. Sure Manu is an exciting player but was replaced.

It very much depends on who England select. As an England fan I am getting less and less optimistic the more players that Lancaster is cutting because I think he's choosing the wrong players and making the wrong decisions.

It goes without saying that if England don't make the quarter finals then Lancaster and co should be sacked.

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Wales
Beat a very fatigued SA in last AIs. Of that bok side expect a huge change in terms of lineups. Maybe 2 in the backline will survive, probably only 1. 4 in the pack should survive. Wales won't be at home and I expect the boks to really go into the game with vigour. They will want revenge. You know what to expect with Wales. SA will need to front up, if so Wales will not be able to answer them... their game fully relies on forwards dominance, take that out and they will be easy pickings. Can Wales dominate a fully fresh bok pack?  

We have done before on a few occasions. Fitness won't be an issue for Wales this time around, but we'd need all our best players to be available. So we'd need the likes of Jenkins, Hibbard/Baldwin, Lee/Francis, AWJ, Charteris/Ball, Lydiate/Moriarty, Warburton/Tipuric, Faletau/Baker. This would ensure we have good replacements. If we get the nudge on at scrum time like before, and learn how to better defend a Bok driving maul (I think we have since last summer) then the answer to your question would be yes. What does a fully fresh Bok pack with its best subs look like right now?

I doubt the Apringboks will be using the maul often, they have been moving away from that during this season with more intent on running the ball wide, the big issue is the breakdown, win that and you win most matches

IF Ireland beat Wales tomorrow, it will be ranked No 2 in the world even if (when) SA beat Argentina.

Probably jinxed us now

Good luck to Ireland then, have they been number 2 before?

fa0019 wrote:The problem for group A is that they have 3 huge matches to play.. they will have injuries, fatigue and that all favours their group B counterparts.

I don't think any side will go in too cold from group B... Samoa, Scotland and SA have enough amongst them to tune up regardless.

The problem will be mental for the runner up of group A. Regardless of what they say... it will be a huge downer to not get the "easier" route of topping the table.  Imagine you're England, you lose a match, win 2 huge battles and then have to face SA (a team who you haven't beaten in the last 12 outings home and away). Home advantage fine but twickenham can only hold 80,000 fans so home support or not it will be no more loud than last years test or the year before, or the year before that etc.

SA won't walk it but I think only AUS have the game to beat them at a RWC.

England
England are really going to miss Hartley & Tuilagi (one is their best hooker by far, the other is their only x factor player who can win games from nothing). Pollard is a far better kicker than Ford and has 10 yards on him come range too. Means that in a tight KO game if Ford can't keep up with Pollard they will quickly go behind and have to start chasing. Its how England lost to Ireland earlier this year and how I see them losing to SA in a tight matchup. Bissie, Louw, Brussow, Coetzee even Burger are great ruck operators.... Cole and maybe Robshaw are their only genuine equivalents. One on one I think SA are better.

Australia
The one team which has the game to ruffle SA. SA should dominate upfront but AUS always seem to be able to lap it up, never go too far behind. Their front five is a better unit then before, lineout looks steady and a backrow with Hooper and Pocock looks very dangerous.. one reason why I think AUS may shade ENG and WAL.

Wales
Beat a very fatigued SA in last AIs. Of that bok side expect a huge change in terms of lineups. Maybe 2 in the backline will survive, probably only 1. 4 in the pack should survive. Wales won't be at home and I expect the boks to really go into the game with vigour. They will want revenge. You know what to expect with Wales. SA will need to front up, if so Wales will not be able to answer them... their game fully relies on forwards dominance, take that out and they will be easy pickings. Can Wales dominate a fully fresh bok pack?

^^^ Absolute delusion!!

No offence but half of that paragraph is excuses and stale old poppycock!! SA were not fatigued, they were just in dissary, and coming off a humbling beating in Dublin, they were supposed to react to the loss which they did, they were much better and still lost!

Anyone going into the RWC Q/F will be full of vigour, you know what to expect with Wales, to the exact same degree you know what to expect with SA, SA will need to front up to be in the game, every team will, and if SA front up there will be a match on, not a one sided blow out, as there haven't been in recent years, Wales don't need to dominate a fully fresh SA pack, as they didn't Irelands pack, and didn't SA's pack last year, however they won both games on the back of their defence and kicking game!

I get you really into, we turn up and do what we can and we win, but there has to be an ounce of realism, I'm not arguing for Wales to be favourites if they meet SA in the Q/F's, but it would be in no way a walkover, and I would still put money on Wales winning in an ugly manner, which they did last time out.

Biltong wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Wales
Beat a very fatigued SA in last AIs. Of that bok side expect a huge change in terms of lineups. Maybe 2 in the backline will survive, probably only 1. 4 in the pack should survive. Wales won't be at home and I expect the boks to really go into the game with vigour. They will want revenge. You know what to expect with Wales. SA will need to front up, if so Wales will not be able to answer them... their game fully relies on forwards dominance, take that out and they will be easy pickings. Can Wales dominate a fully fresh bok pack?  

We have done before on a few occasions. Fitness won't be an issue for Wales this time around, but we'd need all our best players to be available. So we'd need the likes of Jenkins, Hibbard/Baldwin, Lee/Francis, AWJ, Charteris/Ball, Lydiate/Moriarty, Warburton/Tipuric, Faletau/Baker. This would ensure we have good replacements. If we get the nudge on at scrum time like before, and learn how to better defend a Bok driving maul (I think we have since last summer) then the answer to your question would be yes. What does a fully fresh Bok pack with its best subs look like right now?

I doubt the Apringboks will be using the maul often, they have been moving away from that during this season with more intent on running the ball wide, the big issue is the breakdown, win that and you win most matches

I haven't watched any of the RC so I wouldn't know. I'm surprised to hear that, as it was always an area of strength for the Boks. At one point they would always score a try from it, but I guess it relies on the availability of Bismarck, Etzebeth and Alberts? You're right, getting a nudge on up front would only be 50% of the job against SA. We'll need our defence to be on top and for our best ruck operators (Jenkins, AWJ, Warburton, Faletau) to have an excellent game. Only then would we stand a good chance of winning.

Sin é wrote:IF Ireland beat Wales tomorrow, it will be ranked No 2 in the world even if (when) SA beat Argentina.

Shots fired...

Biltong wrote:Good luck to Ireland then, have they been number 2 before?

I don't think so. No 3 has been our best ranking I think.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Biltong wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Wales
Beat a very fatigued SA in last AIs. Of that bok side expect a huge change in terms of lineups. Maybe 2 in the backline will survive, probably only 1. 4 in the pack should survive. Wales won't be at home and I expect the boks to really go into the game with vigour. They will want revenge. You know what to expect with Wales. SA will need to front up, if so Wales will not be able to answer them... their game fully relies on forwards dominance, take that out and they will be easy pickings. Can Wales dominate a fully fresh bok pack?  

We have done before on a few occasions. Fitness won't be an issue for Wales this time around, but we'd need all our best players to be available. So we'd need the likes of Jenkins, Hibbard/Baldwin, Lee/Francis, AWJ, Charteris/Ball, Lydiate/Moriarty, Warburton/Tipuric, Faletau/Baker. This would ensure we have good replacements. If we get the nudge on at scrum time like before, and learn how to better defend a Bok driving maul (I think we have since last summer) then the answer to your question would be yes. What does a fully fresh Bok pack with its best subs look like right now?

I doubt the Apringboks will be using the maul often, they have been moving away from that during this season with more intent on running the ball wide, the big issue is the breakdown, win that and you win most matches

I haven't watched any of the RC so I wouldn't know. I'm surprised to hear that, as it was always an area of strength for the Boks. At one point they would always score a try from it, but I guess it relies on the availability of Bismarck, Etzebeth and Alberts? You're right, getting a nudge on up front would only be 50% of the job against SA. We'll need our defence to be on top and for our best ruck operators (Jenkins, AWJ, Warburton, Faletau) to have an excellent game. Only then would we stand a good chance of winning.

I suspect the tricks of Ireland last year has convinced Meyer to move away from just having a forward attack based on mauls, Against New Zealand we tried one maul, they also refused to engage and that was the end of that, I cannot recall that we mauled against Australia in the match against them.

So maybe we are learning. Teams find innovative ways of not allowing a contest, in this case the maul, so it is a case of adapt or die.

Sin é wrote:

Biltong wrote:Good luck to Ireland then, have they been number 2 before?

I don't think so. No 3 has been our best ranking I think.

Well in that case I wish Ireland all the best, and will root for them tomorrow

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:The problem for group A is that they have 3 huge matches to play.. they will have injuries, fatigue and that all favours their group B counterparts.

I don't think any side will go in too cold from group B... Samoa, Scotland and SA have enough amongst them to tune up regardless.

The problem will be mental for the runner up of group A. Regardless of what they say... it will be a huge downer to not get the "easier" route of topping the table.  Imagine you're England, you lose a match, win 2 huge battles and then have to face SA (a team who you haven't beaten in the last 12 outings home and away). Home advantage fine but twickenham can only hold 80,000 fans so home support or not it will be no more loud than last years test or the year before, or the year before that etc.

SA won't walk it but I think only AUS have the game to beat them at a RWC.

England
England are really going to miss Hartley & Tuilagi (one is their best hooker by far, the other is their only x factor player who can win games from nothing). Pollard is a far better kicker than Ford and has 10 yards on him come range too. Means that in a tight KO game if Ford can't keep up with Pollard they will quickly go behind and have to start chasing. Its how England lost to Ireland earlier this year and how I see them losing to SA in a tight matchup. Bissie, Louw, Brussow, Coetzee even Burger are great ruck operators.... Cole and maybe Robshaw are their only genuine equivalents. One on one I think SA are better.

Australia
The one team which has the game to ruffle SA. SA should dominate upfront but AUS always seem to be able to lap it up, never go too far behind. Their front five is a better unit then before, lineout looks steady and a backrow with Hooper and Pocock looks very dangerous.. one reason why I think AUS may shade ENG and WAL.

Wales
Beat a very fatigued SA in last AIs. Of that bok side expect a huge change in terms of lineups. Maybe 2 in the backline will survive, probably only 1. 4 in the pack should survive. Wales won't be at home and I expect the boks to really go into the game with vigour. They will want revenge. You know what to expect with Wales. SA will need to front up, if so Wales will not be able to answer them... their game fully relies on forwards dominance, take that out and they will be easy pickings. Can Wales dominate a fully fresh bok pack?

^^^ Absolute delusion!!

No offence but half of that paragraph is excuses and stale old poppycock!! SA were not fatigued, they were just in dissary, and coming off a humbling beating in Dublin, they were supposed to react to the loss which they did, they were much better and still lost!

Anyone going into the RWC Q/F will be full of vigour, you know what to expect with Wales, to the exact same degree you know what to expect with SA, SA will need to front up to be in the game, every team will, and if SA front up there will be a match on, not a one sided blow out, as there haven't been in recent years, Wales don't need to dominate a fully fresh SA pack, as they didn't Irelands pack, and didn't SA's pack last year, however they won both games on the back of their defence and kicking game!

I get you really into, we turn up and do what we can and we win, but there has to be an ounce of realism, I'm not arguing for Wales to be favourites if they meet SA in the Q/F's, but it would be in no way a walkover, and I would still put money on Wales winning in an ugly manner, which they did last time out.

Fanster, I get your allegiance lies with the Home nations, but not everything you disagree with is poopycock.

South Africa did not have their European players available for the match against Wales, also that was the most dire, boring and poor performance from the Springboks in many a year, take the win, but don't expect to play such a dire Springbok again for the foreseeable future.

Biltong wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Biltong wrote:Good luck to Ireland then, have they been number 2 before?

I don't think so. No 3 has been our best ranking I think.

Well in that case I wish Ireland all the best, and will root for them tomorrow

Thanks Biltong. All the best tomorrow as well. Really delighted for Jean de Villiers to be fit - class player and man.

Yeah,mI hope against hope that he can recover form and fitness quickly, it is no use for him to go to the RWC if not in peak condition

I'm not convinced by the Australian pack yet. The Boks dominated them up front a few weeks ago which means normal business was resumed. I think England will do the same and give them a tough time in the scrums. They do have good backs though but com the world cup, I think teams will be more clever in kicking the ball to Folau.

Wales will have a kicking advantage over Eng, Aus and SA, with Halfpenny there. Even Biggar is a high percentage kicker if Halfpenny gets injured. In tight games it could come down to kicks.

Fanster

It was the last game of a 4 match tour and their 10 month season. European based players were barred for playing as it was outside of the window. Of those that started, 5 (maybe 6) are first choice players.

They had 1 foot on the plane home. Similar to NZ 2012 vs. England. If you cannot see this... just recall it was a dire match, no tries were scored, compare this to the last 3 matches in the last 12 months between these 2 sides (2 in SA, 1 in Wales) where they had scored 16 tries between themselves. SA played without a flyhalf for the last 20 mins.

Similar to the constant disastrous summer tours that European teams go on to the SH time and time again.. you know the ones where the 3N sides put on cricket scores onto the opposition.

The seasons are not aligned. The summer tours put out fatigued European teams against mid season and fresh 3N sides. The AIs put out new season and fresh European sides out against fatigued 3N teams. Dismiss this if you want.... it happens to be the truth and a genuine reality of 2 rugby global rugby seasons.

profitius wrote:I'm not convinced by the Australian pack yet. The Boks dominated them up front a few weeks ago which means normal business was resumed. I think England will do the same and give them a tough time in the scrums. They do have good backs though but com the world cup, I think teams will be more clever in kicking the ball to Folau.

Wales will have a kicking advantage over Eng, Aus and SA, with Halfpenny there. Even Biggar is a high percentage kicker if Halfpenny gets injured. In tight games it could come down to kicks.

England will be praying that the Aussie scrum fails because if there is anything like parity then i think Aus will run away with it. Only real hope England have is set piece domination, keeping it tight etc etc yawn.

Gwlad wrote:

profitius wrote:I'm not convinced by the Australian pack yet. The Boks dominated them up front a few weeks ago which means normal business was resumed. I think England will do the same and give them a tough time in the scrums. They do have good backs though but com the world cup, I think teams will be more clever in kicking the ball to Folau.

Wales will have a kicking advantage over Eng, Aus and SA, with Halfpenny there. Even Biggar is a high percentage kicker if Halfpenny gets injured. In tight games it could come down to kicks.

England will be praying that the Aussie scrum fails because if there is anything like parity then i think Aus will run away with it. Only real hope England have is set piece domination, keeping it tight etc etc yawn.

Ford is quite expansive no? I think they are quite a balanced side. The only issue for him is his place kicking accuracy and range IMO.

Accuracy no longer an issue at 80 odd% fa as has been pointed out to you.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Accuracy no longer an issue at 80 odd% fa as has been pointed out to you.

I recall you saying but how many of those are in an acceptable range? 80% is JW range... is he as good as him?

Greg Laidlaw is probably the best in the world within the 10m line but I'd rather have a guy like Halfpenny missing 4/10 from beyond the 10m line than someone not even attempting it and kicking to the corner for a 1/7 chance of a try or whatever.

Had the same issue with Peter Grant here in SA years back. Deadliest kicker in the world second to none for about 3 years straight. His SR record averaged well above 85% but he never took the big kicks that Morne Steyn did.  Steyn's rates was in the high 70s but when you analysed where kickers took kicks it was clear that Morne was heads and shoulders above the rest.

fa0019 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

profitius wrote:I'm not convinced by the Australian pack yet. The Boks dominated them up front a few weeks ago which means normal business was resumed. I think England will do the same and give them a tough time in the scrums. They do have good backs though but com the world cup, I think teams will be more clever in kicking the ball to Folau.

Wales will have a kicking advantage over Eng, Aus and SA, with Halfpenny there. Even Biggar is a high percentage kicker if Halfpenny gets injured. In tight games it could come down to kicks.

England will be praying that the Aussie scrum fails because if there is anything like parity then i think Aus will run away with it. Only real hope England have is set piece domination, keeping it tight etc etc yawn.

Ford is quite expansive no? I think they are quite a balanced side. The only issue for him is his place kicking accuracy and range IMO.

Fair play i rate Ford, he plays very flat and has great hands with a footballing brain, if they can train Burgess to exploit that it could be interesting. I expect Aussie have worked very hard on their scrum…we will know what its capable of in 24hrs.

Half expected NZ to only play 70-80% like they did 4 years ago. Enough to give AUS some confidence only to smash it to pieces if they ever meet in the RWC.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Accuracy no longer an issue at 80 odd% fa as has been pointed out to you.

I recall you saying but how many of those are in an acceptable range? 80% is JW range... is he as good as him?

Greg Laidlaw is probably the best in the world within the 10m line but I'd rather have a guy like Halfpenny missing 4/10 from beyond the 10m line than someone not even attempting it and kicking to the corner for a 1/7 chance of a try or whatever.

Had the same issue with Peter Grant here in SA years back. Deadliest kicker in the world second to none for about 3 years straight. His SR record averaged well above 85% but he never took the big kicks that Morne Steyn did.  Steyn's rates was in the high 70s but when you analysed where kickers took kicks it was clear that Morne was heads and shoulders above the rest.

Hes no half way line kicker but he is now international class. It was an issue when he was coming through but hes improved massively. Id agree that its very nice to have that long range option but it isnt a neccessity. Watch a bit more of him in the next few years and you ll see that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Accuracy no longer an issue at 80 odd% fa as has been pointed out to you.

I recall you saying but how many of those are in an acceptable range? 80% is JW range... is he as good as him?

Greg Laidlaw is probably the best in the world within the 10m line but I'd rather have a guy like Halfpenny missing 4/10 from beyond the 10m line than someone not even attempting it and kicking to the corner for a 1/7 chance of a try or whatever.

Had the same issue with Peter Grant here in SA years back. Deadliest kicker in the world second to none for about 3 years straight. His SR record averaged well above 85% but he never took the big kicks that Morne Steyn did.  Steyn's rates was in the high 70s but when you analysed where kickers took kicks it was clear that Morne was heads and shoulders above the rest.

Hes no half way line kicker but he is now international class. It was an issue when he was coming through but hes improved massively. Id agree that its very nice to have that long range option but it isnt a neccessity. Watch a bit more of him in the next few years and you ll see that.

Doesn't need any skills training, he's a natural 10. Lancaster should have him in the gym doing squats sessions with the front five until the world cup.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Accuracy no longer an issue at 80 odd% fa as has been pointed out to you.

I recall you saying but how many of those are in an acceptable range? 80% is JW range... is he as good as him?

Greg Laidlaw is probably the best in the world within the 10m line but I'd rather have a guy like Halfpenny missing 4/10 from beyond the 10m line than someone not even attempting it and kicking to the corner for a 1/7 chance of a try or whatever.

Had the same issue with Peter Grant here in SA years back. Deadliest kicker in the world second to none for about 3 years straight. His SR record averaged well above 85% but he never took the big kicks that Morne Steyn did.  Steyn's rates was in the high 70s but when you analysed where kickers took kicks it was clear that Morne was heads and shoulders above the rest.

Hes no half way line kicker but he is now international class. It was an issue when he was coming through but hes improved massively. Id agree that its very nice to have that long range option but it isnt a neccessity. Watch a bit more of him in the next few years and you ll see that.

Doesn't need any skills training, he's a natural 10. Lancaster should have him in the gym doing squats sessions with the front five until the world cup.

I don't know where to start, I hope this was a joke?

fa probably meant squat jumps. Throw in some box jumps too.

Speaking of jumps in the gym

Here's TJ Perenara the other day

Well I hope the big 3 continue this form into the WC as the dominance will be challenged.

What I saw in the Aus / NZ game today no one in the NH could live with them. Yes a lot of mistakes were made but caused by the defensive pressure. Both those teams were a lot better than anything we have seen from anyone in the NH. Fast recycling, aggressive fast and accurate rucking, great turnover skills, lots of support on hand, mixing the game up and playing with some pace.

TJ wrote:What I saw in the Aus / NZ game today no one in the NH could live with them.  Yes a lot of mistakes were made but caused by the defensive pressure.    Both those teams were a lot better than anything we have seen from anyone in the NH.  Fast recycling, aggressive fast and accurate rucking, great turnover skills, lots of support on hand, mixing the game up and playing with some pace.

I was watching a different game. The main difference between the tradition big 3 Sh sides and the NH sides has been their attacking play. Today the attacking play was dire. NZ have not played that badly in years.

Gwlad wrote:No way will England beat Australia in RWC.

Absolutely no way England will beat Australia in RWC. Wales and England will likely contest 2nd place and with England's final game v Uruguay the writing may be on the wall for us.

profitius wrote:

TJ wrote:What I saw in the Aus / NZ game today no one in the NH could live with them.  Yes a lot of mistakes were made but caused by the defensive pressure.    Both those teams were a lot better than anything we have seen from anyone in the NH.  Fast recycling, aggressive fast and accurate rucking, great turnover skills, lots of support on hand, mixing the game up and playing with some pace.

I was watching a different game. The main difference between the tradition big 3 Sh sides and the NH sides has been their attacking play. Today the attacking play was dire. NZ have not played that badly in years.

Aus defence smothered them - and Carter had a bad day. It wasn't so much NZ p-layed badly but that Aus denied them the ball and space to score freely. I really think the pace of that game was so far above anything we play in the NH that it was a different class. Rucks were cleared and ball away in a couple of seconds - no 9 stood around waving forwards into position for 20+ seconds before delivering a telegraphed pass. Support runners were there all the time and both sides played mainly a rush defence and played it really well. sure there were a bunch of mistakes but they were a product of the speed and intensity of the game.

TJ wrote:What I saw in the Aus / NZ game today no one in the NH could live with them.  Yes a lot of mistakes were made but caused by the defensive pressure.    Both those teams were a lot better than anything we have seen from anyone in the NH.  Fast recycling, aggressive fast and accurate rucking, great turnover skills, lots of support on hand, mixing the game up and playing with some pace.

y

They were bloody awful today.