Any early leaders for the RWC ...

First topic message reminder :

Now all the contenders have played a warm-up game (or for the SH big 4, a tournament).. Does anyone have any thoughts on who's most likely to lift the trophy at the end. What about players, any standout for the player of the tournament...

I know this is really early, but think getting initial reaction and seeing how it pans out can be fun in its own way, providing it stays as banter and doesn't turn nasty...

Oh and just for the record England don't have 2million senior male players. I know this graphic is from 2011 but it gives you an idea

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not sure Scotland are either!

6MM people. 1 SF, 5 QFs in 7 RWCs with the lowest player pool in all of tier 1 rugby inc. Argentina, Italy and even the USA.

27% win rate vs. the 3Ns in the last 5 years, the best win rate of all 6 nations teams. The team may have been in the doldrums for the last decade, c'est la vie.

Yet for all the money England pour into rugby, all the players they have available, the 2MM people who play the game... they can barely tread water with former colonials with literally a fraction of the budget and numbers. Everyone keeps on saying, oh the money will eventually make a difference, the balance of power will shift... if anything its gone backwards since professionalism.

If you can't see beyond the one dimensional then so be it.

Money per person England must be the lowest so we're doing great! Don't worry mate keep latching onto SA for the reflected glory!

Yeah tell that to yourself if you like. Why is it that England youth smashes all comers and then within 3-4 years they are getting knocked about by  the same counterparts not just NZ? Keep telling yourself that somehow England will do well this WC, perhaps you read into the ever optimist Will Greenwood for inspiration. Don't wish them ill but its a house of cards waiting to come down.

Don't think I've ever gone on here gloating on SA's success. I follow the team sure and certainly discuss and defend them as its 90% of the rugby I watch, live anywhere long enough and you will end up following them especially if you're into club sport.

nathan wrote:Oh and just for the record England don't have 2million senior male players. I know this graphic is from 2011 but it gives you an idea

Man, I knew the pacific islanders already punched above their weight but that is just ridiculous!

But also shows that it's nothing to do with pool size. It's more the culture of the sport in each country. Look at NZ!

This said I do think England should be doing better, they really did settle going for Lancaster over Mallett. In fairness I expect England to make the semis, but I think Ireland have the edge (I think England will beat Australia at home in the group stages).

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not sure Scotland are either!

6MM people. 1 SF, 5 QFs in 7 RWCs with the lowest player pool in all of tier 1 rugby inc. Argentina, Italy and even the USA.

27% win rate vs. the 3Ns in the last 5 years, the best win rate of all 6 nations teams. The team may have been in the doldrums for the last decade, c'est la vie.

Yet for all the money England pour into rugby, all the players they have available, the 2MM people who play the game... they can barely tread water with former colonials with literally a fraction of the budget and numbers. Everyone keeps on saying, oh the money will eventually make a difference, the balance of power will shift... if anything its gone backwards since professionalism.

If you can't see beyond the one dimensional then so be it.

Money per person England must be the lowest so we're doing great! Don't worry mate keep latching onto SA for the reflected glory!

Yeah tell that to yourself if you like. Why is it that England youth smashes all comers and then within 3-4 years they are getting knocked about by  the same counterparts not just NZ? Keep telling yourself that somehow England will do well this WC, perhaps you read into the ever optimist Will Greenwood for inspiration. Don't wish them ill but its a house of cards waiting to come down.

Don't think I've ever gone on here gloating on SA's success. I follow the team sure and certainly discuss and defend them as its 90% of the rugby I watch, live anywhere long enough and you will end up following them especially if you're into club sport.

We might do well, there's about 5 teams who stand a really good chance, not Scotland, but it's not the end of the world. As you say there's some quality kids coming through so it looks good. I don't think I'd ever follow an international team other than my country but I know some prefer to.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not sure Scotland are either!

6MM people. 1 SF, 5 QFs in 7 RWCs with the lowest player pool in all of tier 1 rugby inc. Argentina, Italy and even the USA.

27% win rate vs. the 3Ns in the last 5 years, the best win rate of all 6 nations teams. The team may have been in the doldrums for the last decade, c'est la vie.

Yet for all the money England pour into rugby, all the players they have available, the 2MM people who play the game... they can barely tread water with former colonials with literally a fraction of the budget and numbers. Everyone keeps on saying, oh the money will eventually make a difference, the balance of power will shift... if anything its gone backwards since professionalism.

If you can't see beyond the one dimensional then so be it.

Money per person England must be the lowest so we're doing great! Don't worry mate keep latching onto SA for the reflected glory!

Yeah tell that to yourself if you like. Why is it that England youth smashes all comers and then within 3-4 years they are getting knocked about by  the same counterparts not just NZ? Keep telling yourself that somehow England will do well this WC, perhaps you read into the ever optimist Will Greenwood for inspiration. Don't wish them ill but its a house of cards waiting to come down.

Don't think I've ever gone on here gloating on SA's success. I follow the team sure and certainly discuss and defend them as its 90% of the rugby I watch, live anywhere long enough and you will end up following them especially if you're into club sport.

I think we are starting to see the promising players from the youth setups coming through to the senior team. I think we haven't had good transitioning procedures in place before Lancaster was involved with the first team.
Lancaster said from the beginning that this World Cup would come to soon.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not sure Scotland are either!

6MM people. 1 SF, 5 QFs in 7 RWCs with the lowest player pool in all of tier 1 rugby inc. Argentina, Italy and even the USA.

27% win rate vs. the 3Ns in the last 5 years, the best win rate of all 6 nations teams. The team may have been in the doldrums for the last decade, c'est la vie.

Yet for all the money England pour into rugby, all the players they have available, the 2MM people who play the game... they can barely tread water with former colonials with literally a fraction of the budget and numbers. Everyone keeps on saying, oh the money will eventually make a difference, the balance of power will shift... if anything its gone backwards since professionalism.

If you can't see beyond the one dimensional then so be it.

Money per person England must be the lowest so we're doing great! Don't worry mate keep latching onto SA for the reflected glory!

Yeah tell that to yourself if you like. Why is it that England youth smashes all comers and then within 3-4 years they are getting knocked about by  the same counterparts not just NZ? Keep telling yourself that somehow England will do well this WC, perhaps you read into the ever optimist Will Greenwood for inspiration. Don't wish them ill but its a house of cards waiting to come down.

Don't think I've ever gone on here gloating on SA's success. I follow the team sure and certainly discuss and defend them as its 90% of the rugby I watch, live anywhere long enough and you will end up following them especially if you're into club sport.

The transition from U20s to international rugby is not seamless for England players. That's the reason. More obstacles for English youth to pass.

Whether that's depth, having to fight for club game time or simply poor selections by the coaches.

I am torn on Lancaster because I do criticise him a lot but on the other hand feel he's done a solid if unspectacular job so far.

He's done a job that means he doesn't warrant being fired just yet but this world cup is likely to make him or break him.

Catt and Farrell - I don't rate as coaches though.


Selection and tactics is still a work in progress for Lancaster though.

Ireland do have a superior coach to England and it's showing at the moment.

England's silliest error was allowing Shaun Edwards to go to Wales.

He's arguably been the most influential coach for Wales.

I am of the opinion that Lancaster has done good job, those close losses to SA is not a coaches fault, that is down to the players

I agree that Lancaster may not be spectacular but has done a lot of unglamorous work which will pay off later. I also agree that that is probably not enough to save Lancaster if England don't at least make the semis.

Biltong  it's not as simplistic as that - it's tactics and gameplan, selection and use of the bench too, decision making etc.


There are two big blots on Lancaster's record and England's at the moment he needs to address.

No win against SA - if Scotland,Wales, Ireland, even Argentina now can all do it in recent years then so should England.

No GS - again if Wales,France and Ireland can in recent years then so should England.

It's not good enough that England haven't won a GS and haven't beaten SA in recent years.

England are at a level where they should be achieving these.

beshocked wrote:Biltong  it's not as simplistic as that - it's tactics and gameplan, selection and use of the bench too, decision making etc.


There are two big blots on Lancaster's record and England's at the moment he needs to address.

No win against SA - if Scotland,Wales, Ireland, even Argentina now can all do it in recent years then so should England.

No GS - again if Wales,France and Ireland can in recent years than so should England.

It's not good enough that England haven't won a GS and haven't beaten SA in recent years.

England are at a level where they should be achieving these.

I understand that, but if you consider his selections (you'll know better than me) are there glaring ommissions ?

His gameplan, I think the game plan is looking good, it is often execution that lets England down, especially in the backline, now that may be down to skills, if it is then you can't expect him to improve that, a player should have those skills at that level.

As for subs, I agree, Meyer makes the worst timed subs ever.

Who can do a better job than Lancaster though?

Biltong I have been like a broken record - I think leaving out Maro Itoje is a glaring ommission. Most people agree he's one of the top English forward prospects around yet he's not picked.  Posters like Sgt Pooly says he's unproven - winning the AP and battling physically with powerhouse French forwards in the ERCC is not unproven in my book. Can't prove your worth if not given the opportunity.

The reason why he stands out from another prospect like let's say Clifford is because he's bigger and stronger, he's got a physique that is already more suited to international rugby and has had those big games against big opposition. He has played his part in an AP winning side as a starter and makes him stand out in my book. It's already not easy to outmuscle Itoje and he's only 20.

Burgess has been getting the headlines but Itoje is the player I think Lancaster should have been championing. The way people are raving about Burgess is how I feel about Itoje.

Leaving out Ksevic for Clark isn't great either.


Well you don't know unless you tried another coach.

I think there are some great English coaches in the AP like Baxter,King,Mallinder and Gustard. As for being better - we wouldn't know unless they were tried.

Though I know personally I would replace Farrell and Catt with Gustard and King in a heartbeat. It would damage Saracens and Saints but would be good for England.

As for head coach - could even keep Lancaster with those two talented guys to help him.

Picking a head coach is tough.

England had the players in various camps for several weeks before cutting guys like Itoje, Slater and Kvesic. They saw them up against their challengers and decided they came up short of what was needed.

People on the outside can state they were wrong, but they are basing that on prejudices rather than the evidence (that admittedly is not available to them).


Lancaster has made no glaring omissions in selection across his tenure. He has made some odd calls (Tuilagi on the wing for instance) yet the same people who denounce those want him to take untried risks elsewhere.

Lancaster perhaps shows a touch too much faith to those already in the shirt, squad. Rugby is though a team game and with limited time players who know each other and the system will do better than those on the outside who mat be a tiny fraction better.

International coaching and selection is easy for us Board Warriors. We are never wrong because what we want is never tested. If a coach does what we want and win they are a genius. If it fails we pretend we did not agree and denounce before moving on to the next hot thing.

Biltong wrote:I am of the opinion that Lancaster has done good job, those close losses to SA is not a coaches fault, that is down to the players

Yet the coach continues to pick them. Robshaw is a good player. No one doubts that. But he does make strange decisions as a captain, ones that certainly have cost important matches.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Lancaster to me seems very much like John Mitchell. He had some successes but how much of this was down to the quality of the players available and how much was it down to his own coaching?

Everyone says SCW had the best class of players England have ever had... I'd tend not to agree. The Cooke/Rowell years were just as fruitful in terms of talent (during that era England dominated the Lions and they won 2 out of 3 tours and the 3rd in NZ went right down to the wire.. and really blew the final test when they had a handy lead).  The diff was SCW knew the SH game and more importantly the SH winning mentality. He turned them into world beaters.

Lancaster for me is just there for the ride. What Dillaglio did was arguably worse than Tuilagi and Hartley.... yes he dropped him as captain but he kept him in the side. The fact that Tuilagi got zero jail time means the term "assault" is a technical one only. Had he actually assaulted them he would have done time, pure and simple. He's an idiot but he also happens to be the best player in England by miles.

Assualt on a police officer, female at that is one thing, the fact he's also injured may have come into it. Ditto Hartley, he may have gone but as he's banned for the 1st match really risky for injuries and may be called up for any injuries afterwards.

SCW was a facilitator who made a shedload of errors in his first 5 or so years in charge. He had a team full of leaders as well as a great forwards and backs coaches.

With the constraints placed on him, Cooke did much better imo.

Londontiger it's flawed to base a player's ability on a training camp because you could have player X excelling in that environment but failing when it matters.

Lancaster has made some very poor selections during his tenure like Wood at 8, starting Nowell vs France away, Tuilagi on the wing (as you mentioned), Lawes at 6, Brown on the wing vs Wales.

There are better times to take risks.

The Burgess scenario is poor management - it's unfair on Burgess - the tug of war pull on his best position is not good for him IMO.

Lancaster has done other poor player management too e.g. - picking Farrell Jr for the AIs when he was still injured and in woeful form - should have given him the AIs off.

Lancaster has also made poor bench selections like vs France in 2014 when the bench contributed to the loss - Goode was a poor replacement for May, T.Youngs came on and proceeded to suck all momentum out of England, France scored their last try against a hotch potch England defence.

I feel like if Lancaster just got one of those selections right England would have won.

When Lancaster's mistakes cost a GS did he apologise? No he didn't. Should have held his hands up and said "sorry I got a few things wrong that might have made the difference"

No 7&1/2 wrote:Assualt on a police officer, female at that is one thing, the fact he's also injured may have come into it.

He turned round and pushed two people who had grabbed hold of him. Legally that counts as assualt but the paltry fine indicates the seriousness of the affair.

Even so I agree that he should have been left out even if fit. That he was not fit made the decision easier.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Assualt on a police officer, female at that is one thing, the fact he's also injured may have come into it. Ditto Hartley, he may have gone but as he's banned for the 1st match really risky for injuries and may be called up for any injuries afterwards.

Yes Assault a police officer. If you read the reports he pushed a police officer. That's right... push.

If you assault a police officer i.e. throw your dukes at them and connect you get jail time, instant. He got a fine only.

its a big difference.

A friend of mine whilst at uni (although lost contact many years back) punched a copper full in the face... his CO at ROTC called up saying he didn't want a regretful incident to damage his military career.... he got off and didn't even end up joining up either.

Beshocked we will never agree, in part because I believe you live inb some dreamworld where everything you would have done would have worked out better.

nowell's debut - you have to give players their first start at some time, Ashton had been excrement for several years and every other winger was injured.

Wood at 8. Morgan and Vunipola were injured (though it would have been a debut I think for Billy). Only real option was a recall for Easter. England would still have lost and he would have been pilloried for that.

Tuilagi on the wing. Most of the papers and half this board were suggesting it. When else do you try something like that.

Lawes on the flank - he learnt something and England won that game.

Brown on the wing vs Wales. Had he not been on the wing for the entire tournament and the victory against NZ you often hark back to.


That you think England should win in Paris/Cardiff/Dublin smacks of arrogance to me.

beshocked wrote:Londontiger it's flawed to base a player's ability on a training camp because you could have player X excelling in that environment but failing when it matters.

Lancaster has made some very poor selections during his tenure like Wood at 8, starting Nowell vs France away, Tuilagi on the wing (as you mentioned), Lawes at 6, Brown on the wing vs Wales.

There are better times to take risks.

The Burgess scenario is poor management - it's unfair on Burgess - the tug of war pull on his best position is not good for him IMO.

Lancaster has done other poor player management too e.g. - picking Farrell Jr for the AIs when he was still injured and in woeful form - should have given him the AIs off.

Lancaster has also made poor bench selections like vs France in 2014 when the bench contributed to the loss - Goode was a poor replacement for May, T.Youngs came on and proceeded to suck all momentum out of England, France scored their last try against a hotch potch England defence.

I feel like if Lancaster just got one of those selections right England would have won.

When Lancaster's mistakes cost a GS did he apologise? No he didn't. Should have held his hands up and said "sorry I got a few things wrong that might have made the difference"

Surely an international coach has the right to experiment?

LondonTiger wrote:Beshocked we will never agree, in part because I believe you live inb some dreamworld where everything you would have done would have worked out better.

nowell's debut - you have to give players their first start at some time, Ashton had been excrement for several years and every other winger was injured.

Wood at 8. Morgan and Vunipola were injured (though it would have been a debut I think for Billy). Only real option was a recall for Easter. England would still have lost and he would have been pilloried for that.

Tuilagi on the wing. Most of the papers and half this board were suggesting it. When else do you try something like that.

Lawes on the flank - he learnt something and England won that game.

Brown on the wing vs Wales. Had he not been on the wing for the entire tournament and the victory against NZ you often hark back to.


That you think England should win in Paris/Cardiff/Dublin smacks of arrogance to me.

This x 100

Londontiger fair enough if you think I live in a dreamworld.  No I don't think I get everything right but I do question  some of Lancaster's more questionable decisions.

Throwing someone into their first match France away when they are as young as Nowell was foolish - I said it before the game and after. That game is one of the worst times to do it.

The problem is you and numerous others don't acknowledge it was a mistake.

To be honest I think it's far worse that Lancaster didn't take responsibility for the loss to France.

Perhaps Lancaster's hands were tied on Wood at 8 but it still was a failure.

Lawes - England won but Lawes wasn't good IMO. They won despite it.

Brown on the wing - it was a short term thing that was exposed by Wales.

It's arrogance to expect a team with more resources to win?

England should be aspiring to win away from home. Wales,Ireland and France aren't unbeatable juggernauts.

You have to have some balance instead of believing that Lancaster does no wrong.

Lancaster is human and makes mistakes. Not everything he's done is bad of course his overall win% is pretty good as I already mentioned in a previous post. 4th in the world is still decent.

When I want England to beat SA and win a GS under Lancaster I don't think I am being unrealistic.


Biltong there are better times to experiment than others - Lancaster has experimented on a few occasions when it would have been better if he didn't.

RWC warm ups - perfect time, France away for example - not a good time.

beshocked you still think that Itoje not going to the world cup is a mistake but that would be a bigger risk than playing Nowell in a 6Ns game surely? Itoje also has much stronger competition than Nowell at the time who was up against a poorly performing Ashton.

Playing Lawes a lock at 6 didn't work out but he'd played well there in the prem. Bit like itoje again?

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Assualt on a police officer, female at that is one thing, the fact he's also injured may have come into it.  

He turned round and pushed two people who had grabbed hold of him. Legally that counts as assualt but the paltry fine indicates the seriousness of the affair.

Even so I agree that he should have been left out even if fit. That he was not fit made the decision easier.

Oh there's definitely grades of seriousness but he had to be dropped for it. Like it or not sports stars are role models and Lancaster has done the right thing. Even if it was a sure fire thing that England would win the WC with him in I'd still want to see him dropped.

No 7&1/2 wrote:beshocked you still think that Itoje not going to the world cup is a mistake but that would be a bigger risk than playing Nowell in a 6Ns game surely? Itoje also has much stronger competition than Nowell at the time who was up against a poorly performing Ashton.

Playing Lawes a lock at 6 didn't work out but he'd played well there in the prem. Bit like itoje again?

no 7 & 1/2 Ashton was actually in better club form than Nowell but okay.....

I can't understand your logic.

It's always more risky to start a new cap in a tougher match with more on the line.

France away in the 6 nations was the first match in the 2014 competition. It was a must win game.

France at home in a warm up for the RWC 2015. Was not a must win game.

It's better to experiment when playing against easier opposition or in matches that have less at stake.

I have said this a few times now but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.

Pretty sure the Lawes at lock was during an important game. Not the same as Itoje.


It also has a knock on effect because if a player is thrown into the deep end and has a poor game then he gets blamed. Damages their confidence.

Hadn't produced for a long time for England though had he. I was at the time still thinking he'd come back to form eventually but the newbies have taken their chances and impressed more in white.

I get your reasoning, start a debutant in a no risk game, it would still be a risk having to start him against Aus after 2 appearances though and then at the WC. Is there need for the risk when you have players who I think even you have said are his current equal and proven? You'd be taking a risk at the WC wouldn't you? Same risk as any debutant but in areas we're strong in.

Lawes played as a 6 in the prem and impressed which is probably why he was given a run out there for England. So it was a mistake to try him because he didn't impress? Itoje has come through all the way as a lock but not trying him is a mistake?

Surely the outcome isn't the only thing you should use to judge whether experiementation/debut/whatever you want to call it is justified? Same with that bench vs France who should have been picked ahead of Goode?

fa0019 wrote:
Yet the coach continues to pick them. Robshaw is a good player. No one doubts that. But he does make strange decisions as a captain, ones that certainly have cost important matches.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Lancaster to me seems very much like John Mitchell. He had some successes but how much of this was down to the quality of the players available and how much was it down to his own coaching?

Everyone says SCW had the best class of players England have ever had... I'd tend not to agree. The Cooke/Rowell years were just as fruitful in terms of talent (during that era England dominated the Lions and they won 2 out of 3 tours and the 3rd in NZ went right down to the wire.. and really blew the final test when they had a handy lead).  The diff was SCW knew the SH game and more importantly the SH winning mentality. He turned them into world beaters.

Lancaster for me is just there for the ride. What Dillaglio did was arguably worse than Tuilagi and Hartley.... yes he dropped him as captain but he kept him in the side. The fact that Tuilagi got zero jail time means the term "assault" is a technical one only. Had he actually assaulted them he would have done time, pure and simple. He's an idiot but he also happens to be the best player in England by miles.

I think you're judging Robshaw on the SA and Aus matches in 2012 - he's not made many questionable decisions since then (the decision not to kick the points on Saturday was Wood's!). Quite apart from that, I would defend the SA one. SA had already sent a couple of restarts into touch, and England would receive the ball and were on top in the scrum. For Quins, he was used to being able to receive a kick off and keep the ball in hand long enough to get in range of a drop goal or win a penalty. As it happened, if Mouritz Botha had left the ball alone then England would have had a kick at goal from half way - within Farrell's range. What was bad decision making was repeatedly going for the lineout against Australia the following week - England turned down enough points to have won the game. But he's learned since then.

If you've followed Lancaster in any detail, it's clear he's more than "just there for the ride." Even before Johnson resigned he had mapped out what he saw as the issues with the squad - one of which was the culture. From the outset he has been clear about the standards that he expects of the players and he's been consistent in dropping them when breached - he dropped Danny Care for a drink drive offence in his first week. Besides all that, the reports from Leicester are that Tuilagi is still injured and Hartley's ban means he wouldn't be available for the opening game - which would leave England in a precarious position if he were picked (though one that Australia and Argentina seem happy to live with!)

No 7&1/2 wrote:Did I say you couldn't? Just amusing given Scotlands record in the 6Ns!

Do Scotland have a record in the 6 Nations? If so it is definitely broken.

beshocked wrote:
It's always more risky to start a new cap in a tougher match with more on the line.

Tougher from who's point of view? From the players perspective, is making your debut in the first game of the Six Nations a more daunting prospect than debuting in front of a full Twickers in a game that could decide if you go on to play in the World Cup?

beshocked wrote:France away in the 6 nations was the first match in the 2014 competition. It was a must win game.

Every Six nations game is a must win these days.

beshocked wrote:It also has a knock on effect because if a player is thrown into the deep end and has a poor game then he gets blamed. Damages their confidence.

Nowell went on to play in every other Six nations game last season, who was blaming him?

Gwlad wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Did I say you couldn't? Just amusing given Scotlands record in the 6Ns!

Do Scotland have a record in the 6 Nations? If so it is definitely broken.

Hey now, at least we did a proper job of getting the spoon this year!

We must have an unofficial record for the most false dawns...

We're nearly there, just waiting to surprise you all in the final

I have read with some amusement some of the comments here and wonder about them.
Reality check the last 3 years 6 Ns Ireland,Wales,England was decided on points difference
effectively a 3 way tie each year.
France will be in there pitching too,all the Tier2 sides at full strength so there will be the
odd upset.
SA team in RC was government picked using quota system,the injured have been in
training camps as in 2011.The RWC side will contain many Europe based players and
probably have most caps too.
Australia have been adapting to New Coach and improving all year the players discarded
or not considered show there strength.
NZ have been adjusting the squad,feeding in the odd bolter BUT the main aim was to
get the Senior Six to the starting gate.JOB DONE myself only 4 would be certainties
but Mealamu`s done enough probably.Crockett and Moody are now better than
Woodcock on recent form,and SBW is a luxury.

emack2 wrote:I have read with some amusement some of the comments here and wonder about them.
Reality check the last 3 years 6 Ns Ireland,Wales,England was decided on points difference
effectively a 3 way tie each year.
France will be in there pitching too,all the Tier2 sides at full strength so there will be the
odd upset.
SA team in RC was government picked using quota system,the injured have been in
training camps as in 2011.The RWC side will contain many Europe based players and
probably have most caps too.
Australia have been adapting to New Coach and improving all year the players discarded
or not considered show there strength.
NZ have been adjusting the squad,feeding in the odd bolter BUT the main aim was to
get the Senior Six to the starting gate.JOB DONE myself only 4 would be certainties
but Mealamu`s done enough probably.Crockett and Moody are now better than
Woodcock on recent form,and SBW is a luxury.

Eh? Only 2015 was a three-way 'tie' (though it's not really a tie as all sides know that points difference comes into it in that situation)

2013 - Wales and England finished on 8 points (Ireland had 3)
2014 - Ireland and England finished on 8 points (Wales had 6)

I think his point was that there really has been bugger all between the teams.

London Tiger is correct,my stats it seems were slightly out but you get my point.I`m to old
and cynical to believe anything just before a RWC.
My views on RWC`s well known a system where the best 2 teams in the World can`t meet
in a RWC Final is flawed.
A system where a SH v NH team meets in 6 out of 7 is flawed and has little to do with
reality.Frankly Ireland are not THE second best team in the World unless they can do
it away too.
The only reason the SUITS have there knickers in a twist about the draw for seeds is
because there is a very real possibility of Englands early exit.
There should be NO seeds in a TRUE Cup Comp. IF ALL THE TIER 1 sides plus say
England and France are in the same group FINE.THEN we`d really know who could cut it
wouldn`t we?
I don`t believe in stats BUT in History which says for example Aus will win roughly 1 in
3 matches v NZ.At Home or on neutral territory,that gets down to Evens in Sydney,
add Wayne Barnes and its 60/40.
SA at home or neutral its about 1 in 2.5 especialy on the Veldt,England 1 in 9,France 1in 8
etc.
I also wrote no matter what Nz did they couldn't win because there 2 wins were at home
the fact they`ve gone on both occasions long periods with minimal losses means NOTHING.
You can win a RWC without meeting the so called BEST team WHOEVER that may be injuries,
Refs decisions etc.
France,SA and Aus are ALL strong contenders to win there groups and the RWC itself.

Best 2 can meet, Ireland are the 2nd best at the moment! There needs to be seeding though I think its done slightly early otherwise too many big players could go out.

LondonTiger wrote:I think his point was that there really has been bugger all between the teams.

After todays dismal showing by an England first team in france i would say there is less than bugger all. I expect ireland will knock them into next week and then Fiji will think they can have a piece too. Followed by Wales….do hope there is some left for Aus and Uruguay.

True gwlad. No hope and no pressure on England now. May save face if they get lucky.

Gwlad wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I think his point was that there really has been bugger all between the teams.

After todays dismal showing by an England first team in france i would say there is less than bugger all. I expect ireland will knock them into next week and then Fiji will think they can have a piece too. Followed by Wales….do hope there is some left for Aus and Uruguay.

Wow. So Australia and Fiji to qualify. Good news.

Actually, England's weak pack and half-assed breakdown effort today is pretty much a blueprint for how to lose to Fiji. They could do a lot more with that volume of quality ball than France managed.

On the other hand, England did show something out wide again, and it's not that long since the forwards were looking very good (with pretty much the same group of players) so you have to believe they may still be a threat. But they look a little less likely than they did before today. And France a little more likely - that pack will be a great asset in knockout games when nerves fray and backs' fluency goes.

Sorry just don`t buy it these warm up matches are just that,doubt any player was going
to risk injury for a result.
This is the worst thing about Pre RWC warm up matches, current IRB ratings are mostly
on 2014 results.
There should be no such thing as Friendlies a TEST MATCH is just that Lancaster must
know his Squad by now.
England depth of players is such they could turn out SIX sides of roughly even strength.

blackcanelion wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I think his point was that there really has been bugger all between the teams.

After todays dismal showing by an England first team in france i would say there is less than bugger all. I expect ireland will knock them into next week and then Fiji will think they can have a piece too. Followed by Wales….do hope there is some left for Aus and Uruguay.

Wow. So Australia and Fiji to qualify. Good news.

I'm choked.

Hoonercat wrote:

beshocked wrote:
It's always more risky to start a new cap in a tougher match with more on the line.

Tougher from who's point of view? From the players perspective, is making your debut in the first game of the Six Nations a more daunting prospect than debuting in front of a full Twickers in a game that could decide if you go on to play in the World Cup?

beshocked wrote:France away in the 6 nations was the first match in the 2014 competition. It was a must win game.

Every Six nations game is a must win these days.

beshocked wrote:It also has a knock on effect because if a player is thrown into the deep end and has a poor game then he gets blamed. Damages their confidence.

Nowell went on to play in every other Six nations game last season, who was blaming him?

Well if you make a high profile mistake in a 6 nations game against tough opposition you can cost your team the title. Make a mistake in a warm up game and you might cost your own chances of a RWC spot but the result isn't important.

Warm ups are warm ups. Better to get the bad performances out of the system before the important matches start.


Every 6 nations game is a must win but some games are easier than others - e.g. vs Scotland and Italy. France away isn't the same as Scotland or Italy at home. Debuting against France away is tougher. You can make a mistake against some sides and it won't effect the result on the day.

I am blaming Nowell partially for the loss - he made two mistakes which led to two tries for France. Not surprising for a debutant to be nervous and it showed. People say but Nowell wasn't on the pitch when France scored the winning try - well so what? The damage had already been done by Nowell.

It was a tactical mistake to start Nowell. Lancaster's fan club and Lancaster himself don't admit this.

I should add it was not the only mistake Lancaster made and was not the only reason England lost but it certainly did have an impact.

beshocked it's more to the point that I think you should judge players on their whole performance. Overall Nowell wasn't bad and got better. There's nothing really from Ashton (previous place holder) from his previous England games to suggest he would have done better. You really should be putting the boot into Lancaster giving Burrell a debut as well surely?

The damage was done by Nowell? But when he left England were winning; I'm inclined to think the people on the pitch at that time had more say from then on.

emack2 wrote:London Tiger is correct,my stats it seems were slightly out but you get my point.I`m to old
and cynical to believe anything just before a RWC.
My views on RWC`s well known a system where the best 2 teams in the World can`t meet
in a RWC Final is flawed.
A system where a SH v NH team meets in 6 out of 7 is flawed and has little to do with
reality.Frankly Ireland are not THE second best team in the World unless they can do
it away too.
The only reason the SUITS have there knickers in a twist about the draw for seeds is
because there is a very real possibility of Englands early exit.
There should be NO seeds in a TRUE Cup Comp. IF ALL THE TIER 1 sides plus say
England and France are in the same group FINE.THEN we`d really know who could cut it
wouldn`t we?
I don`t believe in stats BUT in History which says for example Aus will win roughly 1 in
3 matches v NZ.At Home or on neutral territory,that gets down to Evens in Sydney,
add Wayne Barnes and its 60/40.
SA at home or neutral its about 1 in 2.5 especialy on the Veldt,England 1 in 9,France 1in 8
etc.
I also wrote no matter what Nz did they couldn't win because there 2 wins were at home
the fact they`ve gone on both  occasions long periods with minimal losses means NOTHING.
You can win a RWC without meeting the so called BEST team WHOEVER that may be injuries,
Refs decisions etc.
France,SA and Aus are ALL strong contenders to win there groups and the RWC itself.

Come on Alan

the NH isn't that bad historically.

87 - No SA, France beat AUS to get to final. They earnt it.
91 - No SA, yes pool did favour France and England to not meet AUS or NZ in KO stages (although ENG only lost by 6 in pool). I would say FRA would have troubled NZ had they played them esp at home.
95 - ENG beat AUS, FRA should have beat SA. All SH final.
99 - FRA beat NZ to get to final.
03 - ENG beat SA and AUS win.
07 - ENG beat AUS, France beat NZ.
11 - yes, pool setting favour NH after IRE beat AUS.

So take 95 aside as it was all SH. In 87, 99, 03, 07 all were deserving of SH final participation. In 91 with no SA, FRA and ENG were near just as strong so its wasn't favourable as you say.
In 6 out of 7 world cups a 6N side has beaten a 3N team (the only one being 1991)... goes to show that a NH team has always been in the mix come the tournament.

Dont forget in 91 Australia (the champions) needed a last minute try to beat Ireland in the quarters too.

GunsGerms wrote:Dont forget in 91 Australia (the champions) needed a last minute try to beat Ireland in the quarters too.

Who was that flanker that put you guys into temporary dreamland? What a game to be fair.

No 7&1/2 wrote:beshocked it's more to the point that I think you should judge players on their whole performance. Overall Nowell wasn't bad and got better. There's nothing really from Ashton (previous place holder) from his previous England games to suggest he would have done better. You really should be putting the boot into Lancaster giving Burrell a debut as well surely?

The damage was done by Nowell? But when he left England were winning; I'm inclined to think the people on the pitch at that time had more say from then on.

No 7 & 1/2

We can speculate on whether Ashton would have been better or not (personally I think he wouldn't have made two mistakes that allowed France to score two tries but who knows?) but we know that Nowell made two mistakes which led to two tries for France.

The reality is that most focus goes on the most crucial things which in this case were two errors which led to tries for France. Some mistakes are more costly than others.

Oh right so if England were winning when he went off it writes off his errors does it?

It's the same as when people focus on T.Youngs' poor throwing - he might well be a cannon ball around the field but it's his throwing that has remained the focus.

Nowell gave away a scrum and was caught with a bad bounce. It happens, not a debut where you looked and thought this kid is out of his depth.

When Nowell was on the pitch the team did enough to be winning. If he'd stayed on the pitch I don't think that France would have found him as easy to beat down that right wing.

Is it a mistake to give people a debut in anything other than an 'easy' game? I think it's more important or more ideal to give people the chance in a settled team. You've said it was a mistake to play Nowell, presumaly right to give Burrell a debut and a mistake to have Goode on the bench. Looking before the game I'd have started with Ashton but Nowell showed enough to suggest he was good enough, as did Burrell. Not sure who was around to take Goode's place at that time, Foden was injured I think?

beshocked wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:beshocked it's more to the point that I think you should judge players on their whole performance. Overall Nowell wasn't bad and got better. There's nothing really from Ashton (previous place holder) from his previous England games to suggest he would have done better. You really should be putting the boot into Lancaster giving Burrell a debut as well surely?

The damage was done by Nowell? But when he left England were winning; I'm inclined to think the people on the pitch at that time had more say from then on.

No 7 & 1/2

We can speculate on whether Ashton would have been better or not (personally I think he wouldn't have made two mistakes that allowed France to score two tries but who knows?) but we know that Nowell made two mistakes which led to two tries for France.

The reality is that most focus goes on the most crucial things which in this case were two errors which led to tries for France. Some mistakes are more costly than others.

Oh right so if England were winning when he went off it writes off his errors does it?

It's the same as when people focus on T.Youngs' poor throwing - he might well be a cannon ball around the field but it's his throwing that has remained the focus.

7 its why Hibbard has been dropped by Gatland. Doesn't matter if a hooker can run like Dane Coles... primary function is lineout followed by scrummaging. If he can't do set piece all the razzmatazz of amazing loose play and tackling ceases to be important. If not then all teams would play flankers at hooker. This ain't RL.

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Dont forget in 91 Australia (the champions) needed a last minute try to beat Ireland in the quarters too.

Who was that flanker that put you guys into temporary dreamland? What a game to be fair.

Gordon Hamilton. My hero that day was Ireland captain Philip Matthews. I was 11 years old watching from the terrace. I cried when Lynagh scored the winner.

Years later I was doing a course in NCI in Dublin and in the conferring ceremony Philip Matthews was the head of the university and gave me my qualification on stage. It was a great moment. I met him after at the reception and told him how much that game meant to me and that I cried at the final whistle. At that point he lent in and whispered "dont tell anyone but you werent the only one".

He really is a great man and a really good commentator and a real hero of mine.