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...

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Anyone else think this might be the most competitive world cup ever?

It'll be the usual suspects at the business end as always. I can't see any big shocks happening at all.

Well not really - the grouping of Australia, England and Wales guarantees at least a couple of big guns to go out before the SF stage.

One of these 3 will not make the QF, which in previous RWC would be an upset and then that will put one of the remaining into a QF with one of the other group winners - creating a more than like 50:50 game with SA that we wouldn't expect to see before the SF.

That means it is impossible to see all the usual suspects come the business end.

We'll either have 3 sanzar teams plus Ireland/France or Argentina.

Or 2 Sanzar and 2 6N.

Either way there is a great chance for an NH team to make the final and Ireland or England look most likely to do it.

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Anyone else think this might be the most competitive world cup ever?

It'll be the usual suspects at the business end as always. I can't see any big shocks happening at all.

In a sense, the big shocks happened in the draw. We can guarantee that one of the top 8 teams won't make the QFs. And since Scotland and Samoa (who last time I looked were 8th and 9th) are also in the same pool, we'll have at least one team from outside the Top 10 in the QFs.

In terms of the later stages, there could still be some surprises. It's just about possible that 3 NH teams could make the semi finals, for instance. And for Ireland have a very strong chance to make the final - which they've never done before.

Historically, the hosts have only failed to make the final once (France in 2007), and the holders have only made the final twice (Australia in 2003, when they were also hosts, and England in 2007). That said, this time New Zealand have a relatively straightforward route to the final and England's couldn't realistically be any harder.

Each of the candidate teams has an achilles heel to manage. For England and SA it looks to be selection, for Wales (particularly), Australia and Ireland it's avoiding injury to some key players, for Argentina it's plan B when someone matches them up front, for New Zealand it's France and for France it's France.

I don't think we can put too much store by who's beaten who in the recent past. Everyone has had losses that have surprised (by the manner of defeat as much as the fact of it), and plenty of games have been close. Everyone has a ref they don't seem to be able to handle. Wales have a crucial win over a SH team (albeit not Australia). We've also seen teams who have been dire right up to the knockout stages make the final in each of the last two RWCs.

Given that we already know that one of Wales, England and Australia will not make it, how does that make it a shock when it happens?

I didn't say 'all' the usual suspects will be there. They never all make it or it would always be the same sides in the semis. Sometimes NZ don't make the semis. Wales sometimes make it through the group sometimes don't, so if they finish 3rd it wouldn't be a huge surprise.

A NH side usually makes the final (well, one of England and France do) so that wouldn't be a surprise or anything new. The NH does need to improve its record in finals though.

Doesn't mean it can't be a great World Cup even if results largely go to form.

What about Wales in 1999 porfour?

Home advantage is overstated for me. Of all the sides to have made the final... all have made finals when away from home, and 3 of the 4 winners have won the title away from home.

Cyril wrote:NZ vs Ireland will be a good quarter-final. I think it might be closer than some people would imagine. NZ to pull away in the last 20 minutes by 15 or so.

Haha Cyril, you are trying so hard. You know Ireland havent lost to France in 4 matches. Tough game though.

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Anyone else think this might be the most competitive world cup ever?

It'll be the usual suspects at the business end as always. I can't see any big shocks happening at all.

If England get to the Semis it will be another NH side more than likely that will join them. Presumably you think therefore it will be France v England in one Semi and NZ v SA in the other?

GunsGerms wrote:

Cyril wrote:NZ vs Ireland will be a good quarter-final. I think it might be closer than some people would imagine. NZ to pull away in the last 20 minutes by 15 or so.

Haha Cyril, you are trying so hard. You know Ireland havent lost to France in 4 matches. Tough game though.

NZ to lose to Argentina in the pool? That would be amusing, no?

GunsGerms wrote:

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Anyone else think this might be the most competitive world cup ever?

It'll be the usual suspects at the business end as always. I can't see any big shocks happening at all.

If England get to the Semis it will be another NH side more than likely that will join them. Presumably you think therefore it will be France v England in one Semi and NZ v SA in the other?

That would be an ideal scenario. Always happy to play France in the RWC.

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Cyril wrote:NZ vs Ireland will be a good quarter-final. I think it might be closer than some people would imagine. NZ to pull away in the last 20 minutes by 15 or so.

Haha Cyril, you are trying so hard. You know Ireland havent lost to France in 4 matches. Tough game though.

NZ to lose to Argentina in the pool? That would be amusing, no?

Spose its possible. Why not, Argentina have come close on a number of occasions. I think they have it in them.

It would make the Ireland v France game really interesting. Do you think it could be the first time two sides try to lose in the WC?

GunsGerms wrote:

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Cyril wrote:NZ vs Ireland will be a good quarter-final. I think it might be closer than some people would imagine. NZ to pull away in the last 20 minutes by 15 or so.

Haha Cyril, you are trying so hard. You know Ireland havent lost to France in 4 matches. Tough game though.

NZ to lose to Argentina in the pool? That would be amusing, no?

Spose its possible. Why not, Argentina have come close on a number of occasions. I think they have it in them.

It would make the Ireland v France game really interesting. Do you think it could be the first time two sides try to lose in the WC?

I think they both would try to lose, but the French would probably win by accident!

Cyril I think it would be a shock if Australia or England go out because they've always made the quarter finals of every RWC so far.

A shock would be if Fiji beat England,Australia or Wales. Or if Italy can beat Ireland or France.

Would love it if Italy,France,Ireland is one win apiece against each other.

Ireland beat Italy, Italy beat France, France beat Ireland is how it could go.

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Anyone else think this might be the most competitive world cup ever?

It'll be the usual suspects at the business end as always. I can't see any big shocks happening at all.

If England get to the Semis it will be another NH side more than likely that will join them. Presumably you think therefore it will be France v England in one Semi and NZ v SA in the other?

That would be an ideal scenario. Always happy to play France in the RWC.

I think the France v England game on Saturday is going to be really interesting. Looking forward to that one.

Cyril wrote:

I think they both would try to lose, but the French would probably win by accident!

Yeah in fairness thats what often happens when we play France.

GunsGerms wrote:

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Anyone else think this might be the most competitive world cup ever?

It'll be the usual suspects at the business end as always. I can't see any big shocks happening at all.

If England get to the Semis it will be another NH side more than likely that will join them. Presumably you think therefore it will be France v England in one Semi and NZ v SA in the other?

That would be an ideal scenario. Always happy to play France in the RWC.

I think the France v England game on Saturday is going to be really interesting. Looking forward to that one.

Yeah. Should be a cracker hopefully.

fa0019 wrote:What about Wales in 1999 porfour?

Home advantage is overstated for me. Of all the sides to have made the final... all have made finals when away from home, and 3 of the 4 winners have won the title away from home.

OK. They were co-hosts. "There have only been two tournaments in which a host country has not made the final." You can have your pedant point now.

The RWC final is a funny thing. It's a great leveller. Quite often you go into the final expecting one team to win at a canter but the result goes the other way or is at least much closer than expected. I would say that the hosts regularly making the final points to significant home advantage.

Poorfour wrote:

fa0019 wrote:What about Wales in 1999 porfour?

Home advantage is overstated for me. Of all the sides to have made the final... all have made finals when away from home, and 3 of the 4 winners have won the title away from home.

OK. They were co-hosts. "There have only been two tournaments in which a host country has not made the final." You can have your pedant point now.

The RWC final is a funny thing. It's a great leveller. Quite often you go into the final expecting one team to win at a canter but the result goes the other way or is at least much closer than expected. I would say that the hosts regularly making the final points to significant home advantage.

Well if thats the case

AUS didn't make the final in 1987
FRA, IRE, SCO, WAL didn't make the final in 1991
ENG, IRE, SCO, FRA didn't make the final in 1999

Wales in 1999 as "hosts" got preferential seeding making sure they miss the big guns in the sport and played all their matches at home. They were the hosts more so than England were in 1991 for the previous sentence.

fa0019 wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

fa0019 wrote:What about Wales in 1999 porfour?

Home advantage is overstated for me. Of all the sides to have made the final... all have made finals when away from home, and 3 of the 4 winners have won the title away from home.

OK. They were co-hosts. "There have only been two tournaments in which a host country has not made the final." You can have your pedant point now.

The RWC final is a funny thing. It's a great leveller. Quite often you go into the final expecting one team to win at a canter but the result goes the other way or is at least much closer than expected. I would say that the hosts regularly making the final points to significant home advantage.

Well if thats the case

AUS didn't make the final in 1987
FRA, IRE, SCO, WAL didn't make the final in 1991
ENG, IRE, SCO, FRA didn't make the final in 1999

Wales in 1999 as "hosts" got preferential seeding making sure they miss the big guns in the sport and played all their matches at home. They were the hosts more so than England were in 1991 for the previous sentence.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I said "a host". One of the host countries made the final in 1987, one of them did in 1991 and one of them (although not the primary host) did in 1999 (erm, France, by the way).

But even if we discount 1999, then in five out of seven tournaments the primary host country (i.e. the team hosting the final) has made it to the final. That's better than chance.

fa0019 wrote:ARG scored 3 down Kriel's right wing channel. He hasn't played top rugby in that position. Meyer experimented and we quickly found out his defensive positioning was not yet up to scratch. Its worked before with De Allende, JDV, Fourie etc but Kriel has never been a top defender.

It was a bad move but good that Meyer found that out then rather say a QF vs. ENG/AUS/WAL etc.

Not a full reason for the loss but a major reason. Kriel is a top player but his wing play in defence needs time.

I don't mean this to sound too bad but Kriel has scored a few decent tries which were untouched run ins, decent lines from 13 but you'd expect every bok back to have scored them, he looked very weak at 13 defencively, and was made to look better by the monstrous performances of De Allendre of late, I think Meyer wants to play De Allendre at 13, but I don't think that works. 13 is a probelm position for SA.

when you think NZ, France, SA and AUS have hosted 5 tournaments out of the 7 I reckon the impact of hosting is reduced, those just happen to be 4 of the 5 historically major rugby nations. I don't think it matters anymore than say playing at home generally.

Take England for instance. Will they be favourites if they play SA in the final because they are at home even though they've lost the last 11 games or so home and away? Every game they play at Twickenham is a sellout so playing a RWC final say will make no difference to a normal AI in terms of atmosphere.

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:ARG scored 3 down Kriel's right wing channel. He hasn't played top rugby in that position. Meyer experimented and we quickly found out his defensive positioning was not yet up to scratch. Its worked before with De Allende, JDV, Fourie etc but Kriel has never been a top defender.

It was a bad move but good that Meyer found that out then rather say a QF vs. ENG/AUS/WAL etc.

Not a full reason for the loss but a major reason. Kriel is a top player but his wing play in defence needs time.

I don't mean this to sound too bad but Kriel has scored a few decent tries which were untouched run ins, decent lines from 13 but you'd expect every bok back to have scored them, he looked very weak at 13 defencively, and was made to look better by the monstrous performances of De Allendre of late, I think Meyer wants to play De Allendre at 13, but I don't think that works. 13 is a probelm position for SA.

The only reason to bring Frans Steyn back is to play him... you don't bring him back to sit on the bench. I reckon if he gets in the squad he starts at 12 with De Allende at 13. If the guys don't resent Steyn he could make the diff... undoubtedly a big match player.... when he plays for the boks.... they win.

We've drawn against SA lately. WC is a good time to get that monkey off the back though!

No 7&1/2 wrote:We've drawn against SA lately. WC is a good time to get that monkey off the back though!

Be tough... either they meet in QF after coming runners up in group (i.e. losing to either Wales or Australia) or in the final after SA beat NZ.
Games have never been run away's to be fair. The points diff in the 5 games in this RWC cycle between the 2 teams have been (3,1,0,9 & 5). Never double figures.

One thing I would worry about if I was Lancaster is that rain or shine, bad performance or good performance, the boks always seem to win in the end vs. England. England had it over the boks during the SCW era. It's a winning mentality and perhaps a losing mentality within the England players. It certainly matters, I reckon many teams turn up to face NZ thinking they will lose before kickoff... with doubts such as the this its no surprise so few get over the line on them.

Could be. Put it this way though I'd be desperately disappointed not to beat SA if we were playing on saturday. By the time we could play them in the WC form and injuries could mean either are favourites.

I think this has to be the most competitive RWC yet as for a start none of the pools bar 1 or 2 are foregone conclusions!

Pool A

England are slight favourites to win the group, but Wales and Australia both have enough to beat them on their day, this will be Englands toughest ever group in a RWC in which they have never failed to progres and the host nation has never failed to progress from their group.

Australia and Wales may fight it out for 2nd however Australia are the better bet using their head to heads.

Fiji might just have the dream beginning to the RWC, as pacific nations champions, but will surely be 4th bet to qualify, unless they manage to shock the hosts up first! England will be nervous as opening act, and for 50/60 minutes Fiji will be physical and tough to overcome, all it would take was a fe England mistakes early on and that last 20 would be a mountain to climb, leaving the world and tournament in shock!

England and Wales to qualify 1 and 2 for me (maybe thats faih talking)

Pool B

SA are huge favourites to qualify, and probably have one foot in the 1/4's, however both Scotland and Samoa will give them competitive game time unlike before, meaning they will be sharpened and ready.

Samoa and Scotland for me are on par, Samoa reeling from the PN final loss to fiji, will be a physical mountain to climb for Scotland that I hope they are prepared for, NZ, Fiji and Tonga have all felt their breakdown dominance of late! Qualification through as 2nd place I'd give to Scotland, as I feel they will fare better with USA and Japan than Samoa, who may well drop points to one of them.

SA and Scotland 1 and 2

Pool C

The gimme group, NZ will blow through this without a challenge, and maybe Argentina will rest players v them too, which will hamper NZ's chances long term IMO.

Argentina and Tonga are the contenders for 2nd spot, but if we're honest Argentina should walk through with NZ.

NZ and Argentina 1 and 2

Pool D

Another group where it's too difficult to predict a winner, France and Ireland are the top seeds here, with Ireland more than handling France in recent years. However I think Italy will be eyeing a real chance at qualification, with Frances inability to put teams away, and theyre lacklustre backline Italy must be viewing that game as their final!!

Infact I'm going to do it, foolishly back Italy to progress behind Ireland.

So my quarters look like...

SA v Wales

NZ v Italy

Ireland v Argentina

England v Scotland

Semi finals then would be...

NZ v Wales

Ireland v England

Finalists...

NZ v Ireland (Not even my blind faith see's Wales winning that semi!)

Winner of the RWC 2015... depends if Joubert is involved and gives it to NZ again lol

All that calculated and said, I probably have at least 40% of the matchups wrong, and the finalists will be who knows...

Pretty competitive RWC though I'd say!

If Ireland get to the quarters I'll be a happy man.
If they reach the semis I'll be ecstatic.
If they were to reach the final I think I'd weep like an old woman.
For us to win the RWC could well be the death of me but it's be a hell of a way to go.

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:ARG scored 3 down Kriel's right wing channel. He hasn't played top rugby in that position. Meyer experimented and we quickly found out his defensive positioning was not yet up to scratch. Its worked before with De Allende, JDV, Fourie etc but Kriel has never been a top defender.

It was a bad move but good that Meyer found that out then rather say a QF vs. ENG/AUS/WAL etc.

Not a full reason for the loss but a major reason. Kriel is a top player but his wing play in defence needs time.

I don't mean this to sound too bad but Kriel has scored a few decent tries which were untouched run ins, decent lines from 13 but you'd expect every bok back to have scored them, he looked very weak at 13 defencively, and was made to look better by the monstrous performances of De Allendre of late, I think Meyer wants to play De Allendre at 13, but I don't think that works. 13 is a probelm position for SA.

The only reason to bring Frans Steyn back is to play him... you don't bring him back to sit on the bench. I reckon if he gets in the squad he starts at 12 with De Allende at 13. If the guys don't resent Steyn he could make the diff... undoubtedly a big match player.... when he plays for the boks.... they win.

I agree (Sorry btw I didn't realise the topic had moved on until after I posted)

Steyn is a big game player, but De Allande's form is so red hot right now I'd be reluctant to move him, I don't think he'd be as effective at 13 as he is 12. I think not only has De Allande been making Kriel look good, I think he makes Pollard look better too, a bit like Roberts did for PReistland a few years ago. 10 and 13 have to come good if Le Roux is going to get into games.

I'd say theres a few settled teams who would fancy their chances at SA right now, Argentina, Wales, and Australia, I would say England but I literally have no idea who Lancaster wants to play at 9, 12, 13, or FB! I know Ford and Watson will be there, but it could be Burgess, Slade, who knows!?

Youngs, Barritt (if fit), Joseph and Brown would be the first choice.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Youngs, Barritt (if fit), Joseph and Brown would be the first choice.

Maybe, however Barrit offers little more than solidity, Care is a potential game changer, Joseph I still have uestion marks over defencively, and Watson maybe as a FB option?

I think LAncaster considering Burgess because he offers as much as Baritt defencively, kind of and has that big carrying game, if he can stay within the laws of the tackle area he is a more exciting option. As is Slade, or maybe even Farell at 12, with an added boot? Wouldn't be the worst call against Fiji!

Historically only the 1st and 2nd ranked teams have ever won the world cup. See you in the final New Zealand.

Yeah we all have our own ideas but if you're wondering who Lancaster wants, its those players.

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Anyone else think this might be the most competitive world cup ever?

It'll be the usual suspects at the business end as always. I can't see any big shocks happening at all.

On paper seven of the top eight teams look evenly matched. It'll probably come down to mental strength, which I think SH teams have in abundance.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah we all have our own ideas but if you're wondering who Lancaster wants, its those players.

Well he wants a backline who works well going forward and back, but I don't think he knows how to find that, he seems intent on shoe horning Burgess in at 12!

Even if Barrit is fit will he be raring to go? I'm not sure.

Cares form has been better recently than Youngs, who seems to be making a lot of mistakes for some reason, maybe Leicesters platform is not what it once was.

Is it really inconceivable to see a backline of...

Care
Ford
Burgess
Joseph
May
nowell
Watson

or

Youngs
Farell
Slade
Burell
Ashton
Strettle
Brown

OK the second is unlikely, but all have a shout at first team rugby and thats my point, Lancaster has too much at his disposal and has to be struggling with the decision, allthough from what I've heard him speak this week Burgess is in at 12 I think!

Burgess may go to the world cup (mistake for me) and he does have a lot of options. He has settled on what will be the current strongest team in his mind though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Burgess may go to the world cup (mistake for me) and he does have a lot of options. He has settled on what will be the current strongest team in his mind though.

I think aside from Ford, May and Watson it's a free for all for the other places, Brown would have to be a strong contender also.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Cyril wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Anyone else think this might be the most competitive world cup ever?

It'll be the usual suspects at the business end as always. I can't see any big shocks happening at all.

On paper seven of the top eight teams look evenly matched. It'll probably come down to mental strength, which I think SH teams have in abundance.

I think there will be the normal teams at the business end (except that Ireland might actually make the last four! ) but I think all of the quarter-finals will be extremely competitive as will many of the group games.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Burgess may go to the world cup (mistake for me) and he does have a lot of options. He has settled on what will be the current strongest team in his mind though.

I think aside from Ford, May and Watson it's a free for all for the other places, Brown would have to be a strong contender also.

OK. Will be interesting to see then.

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:ARG scored 3 down Kriel's right wing channel. He hasn't played top rugby in that position. Meyer experimented and we quickly found out his defensive positioning was not yet up to scratch. Its worked before with De Allende, JDV, Fourie etc but Kriel has never been a top defender.

It was a bad move but good that Meyer found that out then rather say a QF vs. ENG/AUS/WAL etc.

Not a full reason for the loss but a major reason. Kriel is a top player but his wing play in defence needs time.

I don't mean this to sound too bad but Kriel has scored a few decent tries which were untouched run ins, decent lines from 13 but you'd expect every bok back to have scored them, he looked very weak at 13 defencively, and was made to look better by the monstrous performances of De Allendre of late, I think Meyer wants to play De Allendre at 13, but I don't think that works. 13 is a probelm position for SA.

The only reason to bring Frans Steyn back is to play him... you don't bring him back to sit on the bench. I reckon if he gets in the squad he starts at 12 with De Allende at 13. If the guys don't resent Steyn he could make the diff... undoubtedly a big match player.... when he plays for the boks.... they win.

I agree (Sorry btw I didn't realise the topic had moved on until after I posted)

Steyn is a big game player, but De Allande's form is so red hot right now I'd be reluctant to move him, I don't think he'd be as effective at 13 as he is 12. I think not only has De Allande been making Kriel look good, I think he makes Pollard look better too, a bit like Roberts did for PReistland a few years ago. 10 and 13 have to come good if Le Roux is going to get into games.

I'd say theres a few settled teams who would fancy their chances at SA right now, Argentina, Wales, and Australia, I would say England but I literally have no idea who Lancaster wants to play at 9, 12, 13, or FB! I know Ford and Watson will be there, but it could be Burgess, Slade, who knows!?

Kriel has played 3 tests with De Allende, one addional at 14, defensive organisation doesn't happen overnight, he is not afraid to tackle.

Give him time

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Burgess may go to the world cup (mistake for me) and he does have a lot of options. He has settled on what will be the current strongest team in his mind though.

I think aside from Ford, May and Watson it's a free for all for the other places, Brown would have to be a strong contender also.

I disagree with that. Most of the places in the first XV look pretty settled, unless one of them has a shocker or an injury in the remaining warmups.

15. Brown - will only change if he's badly lost form
14. Watson
13. Joseph - he's the man in both form and possession of the shirt. Absent Manu, he probably has to lose the shirt rather than someone else take it.
12. Barritt - this is the position most up for grabs. Barritt's injury shakes it up, but if he's fit he's probably in. The thinking is that Ford and Joseph offer bags of creativity; Barritt adds some bulk, and will orchestrate the defence.
11. Nowell / May - this may be a horses for courses thing
10. Ford
9. Youngs - My thinking is that Care would start if Farrell does, so that he can add the creativity
1. Marler - if his shoulder comes through Saturday
2. Youngs - by default
3. Cole - offers more in the loose than Wilson
4. Launchbury
5. Lawes
6. Wood / Haskell again, could be a horses for courses
7. Robshaw
8. Vunipola - Morgan needs more time to build his fitness back up, and Billy is in form and in possession.

The only position where there's still a big question mark is 12. A case can be made for any of the contenders, and none of them has made a definitive case for inclusion. Barritt is ahead because he has the most credit in the bank and offers enough all round to be a good fit to Ford and Joseph.

I would like him to take Slade, because if Ford gets injured or is rested then Farrell - Slade is a better balance than Farrell - Barritt.

I honestly don't think Lancaster is thinking about Burgess as more than a squad player or impact replacement. He offers a good defensive option at 12 (tbc) and could provide the power at 13 that Tuilagi isn't around to provide, but his lack of experience ultimately counts against him. However, I suspect having him around the camp has a positive impact on everyone else, which might earn him the nod over, say, Burrell.

Yeah I'd go as far as saying Brown, Watson, Joseph and Barritt are without doubt the best in their position right now. Questions marks still remain over Nowell and May for me, but if Cuthbert has an international rugby career (a successful one at that) then these two surely will do as well. The England team is looking settled. Watson is a very classy player might I add.

Biltong wrote:

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

fa0019 wrote:ARG scored 3 down Kriel's right wing channel. He hasn't played top rugby in that position. Meyer experimented and we quickly found out his defensive positioning was not yet up to scratch. Its worked before with De Allende, JDV, Fourie etc but Kriel has never been a top defender.

It was a bad move but good that Meyer found that out then rather say a QF vs. ENG/AUS/WAL etc.

Not a full reason for the loss but a major reason. Kriel is a top player but his wing play in defence needs time.

I don't mean this to sound too bad but Kriel has scored a few decent tries which were untouched run ins, decent lines from 13 but you'd expect every bok back to have scored them, he looked very weak at 13 defencively, and was made to look better by the monstrous performances of De Allendre of late, I think Meyer wants to play De Allendre at 13, but I don't think that works. 13 is a probelm position for SA.

The only reason to bring Frans Steyn back is to play him... you don't bring him back to sit on the bench. I reckon if he gets in the squad he starts at 12 with De Allende at 13. If the guys don't resent Steyn he could make the diff... undoubtedly a big match player.... when he plays for the boks.... they win.

I agree (Sorry btw I didn't realise the topic had moved on until after I posted)

Steyn is a big game player, but De Allande's form is so red hot right now I'd be reluctant to move him, I don't think he'd be as effective at 13 as he is 12. I think not only has De Allande been making Kriel look good, I think he makes Pollard look better too, a bit like Roberts did for PReistland a few years ago. 10 and 13 have to come good if Le Roux is going to get into games.

I'd say theres a few settled teams who would fancy their chances at SA right now, Argentina, Wales, and Australia, I would say England but I literally have no idea who Lancaster wants to play at 9, 12, 13, or FB! I know Ford and Watson will be there, but it could be Burgess, Slade, who knows!?

Kriel has played 3 tests with De Allende, one addional at 14, defensive organisation doesn't happen overnight, he is not afraid to tackle.

Give him time

As much as this is so.... for a one off tournament it ain't half tempting to throw Steyn in at 12. You have a 190cm, 100kg beast who has a deft touch with a reliable and huge boot... let alone one with the best long range placekicking in the game. Would take a lot of responsibilities away from Pollard/Lambie (and I think Lambie will win the jersey).

Its very tempting regardless of his cry baby antics.

Steyn is too slow, besides he can only play 12 not 13, so who goes to 13, De Villiers?

Our form midfield is De Allende and Kriel

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We've drawn against SA lately. WC is a good time to get that monkey off the back though!

Be tough... either they meet in QF after coming runners up in group (i.e. losing to either Wales or Australia) or in the final after SA beat NZ.
Games have never been run away's to be fair. The points diff in the 5 games in this RWC cycle between the 2 teams have been (3,1,0,9 & 5). Never double figures.

One thing I would worry about if I was Lancaster is that rain or shine, bad performance or good performance, the boks always seem to win in the end vs. England. England had it over the boks during the SCW era. It's a winning mentality and perhaps a losing mentality within the England players. It certainly matters, I reckon many teams turn up to face NZ thinking they will lose before kickoff... with doubts such as the this its no surprise so few get over the line on them.

fa0019 I do believe in winning mentalities but eventually most records do get overturned.

As teams get closer to each other in terms of ability then a win becomes more likely obviously.

I feel like England are closing the gap on SA and will win in the next year or two if not this Autumn.

Wales got their first win under Gatland against a tri nations team for a long time last autumn - perhaps that will help get the monkey off their back.

Really interesting comparing Gatland and Lancaster win ratios.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Lancaster_(rugby)

Lancaster 63% win rate compared to Gatland 51% - admittedly Gatland has been in charge of more matches.

3,1,10 -England vs tri nations under Lancaster
2,0,23 - Wales vs tri nations under Gatland

Biltong wrote:Steyn is too slow, besides he can only play 12 not 13, so who goes to 13, De Villiers?

Our form midfield is De Allende and Kriel

True but its a big risk to play Pollard, De Allende and Kriel together. All 3 with <20 caps.

No point bringing in Steyn for no other reason bar to start... he won't exact be a good cheerleader/be there for morale boosting.

De Villiers simply needs another 6 months and by then its too late, no one comes back from a 9 month lay off, no rugby and straight into a RWC with serious form.. especially at the age of 34.

Steyn gives options. He can bosh, he can pass, he can kick, he can place kick from deep and is a drop goal specialist. Slowish yes but De Allende hardly uses his pace... strength yes but pace no.

Would I go for him... I'd be very tempted with a Lambie/Steyn 10-12 partnership just for the world cup. Had De Villiers been fit I'd say no, would I sacrifice De Allende... I'd more likely sacrifice Kriel, defences win world cups. Kriel is a better bench option, brings youthful commitment in last 20 mins.

Irish Londoner wrote:New Zealand should win it, England might win it, SA and Australia are in with a shout and France or Ireland could be the dark horses. Wales won't win it but could spoil the party for either England or Oz.

A lot is going to depend on who tops their group in terms of routes to the final but on form NZ have the straightest route.

Wales could win it just as much as Ire or Eng can and much more than France who will go out in the 1/4s unless they in their group. Wales biggest ask is to keep their first team fit, do that and they are in with as much of a shout as the others.
France will test Ireland but probably lose, that said Ireland have been dismal at RWCs, but Argentina won't roll over for the winners of Pool D and after beating SA they will feel iRELAND OR france are doable and a semi final has to be their objective.

beshocked wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We've drawn against SA lately. WC is a good time to get that monkey off the back though!

Be tough... either they meet in QF after coming runners up in group (i.e. losing to either Wales or Australia) or in the final after SA beat NZ.
Games have never been run away's to be fair. The points diff in the 5 games in this RWC cycle between the 2 teams have been (3,1,0,9 & 5). Never double figures.

One thing I would worry about if I was Lancaster is that rain or shine, bad performance or good performance, the boks always seem to win in the end vs. England. England had it over the boks during the SCW era. It's a winning mentality and perhaps a losing mentality within the England players. It certainly matters, I reckon many teams turn up to face NZ thinking they will lose before kickoff... with doubts such as the this its no surprise so few get over the line on them.

fa0019 I do believe in winning mentalities but eventually most records do get overturned.

As teams get closer to each other in terms of ability then a win becomes more likely obviously.

I feel like England are closing the gap on SA and will win in the next year or two if not this Autumn.

Wales got their first win under Gatland against a tri nations team for a long time last autumn - perhaps that will help get the monkey off their back.

Really interesting comparing Gatland and Lancaster win ratios.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Lancaster_(rugby)

Lancaster 63% win rate compared to Gatland 51% - admittedly Gatland has been in charge of more matches.

3,1,10 -England vs tri nations under Lancaster
2,0,23 - Wales vs tri nations under Gatland

With Gatland its a roller coaster.... great highs great lows. His 3 GS out of 8 is pretty impressive not inc. the Lions.

Lancaster's steady eddy approach is admiral but I think if I could prefer one of the 2 I'd prefer ultimate success with a dash of embarassing failure... rather than a conservative record such is Lancaster's.

I'd also say that with England he has a lot of talent too.... people always make up he took over a shambles of a side... they were GS champs when he took over.

fa0019 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We've drawn against SA lately. WC is a good time to get that monkey off the back though!

Be tough... either they meet in QF after coming runners up in group (i.e. losing to either Wales or Australia) or in the final after SA beat NZ.
Games have never been run away's to be fair. The points diff in the 5 games in this RWC cycle between the 2 teams have been (3,1,0,9 & 5). Never double figures.

One thing I would worry about if I was Lancaster is that rain or shine, bad performance or good performance, the boks always seem to win in the end vs. England. England had it over the boks during the SCW era. It's a winning mentality and perhaps a losing mentality within the England players. It certainly matters, I reckon many teams turn up to face NZ thinking they will lose before kickoff... with doubts such as the this its no surprise so few get over the line on them.

fa0019 I do believe in winning mentalities but eventually most records do get overturned.

As teams get closer to each other in terms of ability then a win becomes more likely obviously.

I feel like England are closing the gap on SA and will win in the next year or two if not this Autumn.

Wales got their first win under Gatland against a tri nations team for a long time last autumn - perhaps that will help get the monkey off their back.

Really interesting comparing Gatland and Lancaster win ratios.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Lancaster_(rugby)

Lancaster 63% win rate compared to Gatland 51% - admittedly Gatland has been in charge of more matches.

3,1,10 -England vs tri nations under Lancaster
2,0,23 - Wales vs tri nations under Gatland

With Gatland its a roller coaster.... great highs great lows. His 3 GS out of 8 is pretty impressive not inc. the Lions.

Lancaster's steady eddy approach is admiral but I think if I could prefer one of the 2 I'd prefer ultimate success with a dash of embarassing failure... rather than a conservative record such is Lancaster's.

I'd also say that with England he has a lot of talent too.... people always make up he took over a shambles of a side... they were GS champs when he took over.

Very impressive especially as he has only won 2 GSlams…and what are the lows? Do you mean not winning the 6 Nations every year having only won 3/8 since coming into the job, or losing in a RWC semi thanks to a ref destroying the contest.

I'd say he's done well but not outstanding. Consistency has been a problem and he's had a VERY talented squad of players to choose from.

fa0019 wrote:I'd say he's done well but not outstanding. Consistency has been a problem and he's had a VERY talented squad of players to choose from.

Consistency? Oh i see so he should have won every year .

He has a 40% win rate win the tournament! Since he came in only Ireland have achieved that, France and England have a 12.5% win rate.

yes the squad is very talented but bar italy/scotland it is probably drawn from the smallest pool of players.

Gwlad wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I'd say he's done well but not outstanding. Consistency has been a problem and he's had a VERY talented squad of players to choose from.

Consistency? Oh i see so he should have won every year .

He has a 40% win rate win the tournament! Since he came in only Ireland have achieved that, France and England have a 12.5% win rate.

yes the squad is very talented but bar italy/scotland it is probably drawn from the smallest pool of players.

If we're being critical absolutely. A team that wins 2 GS and a further 6N should have a better record than 2 wins in 28 matches vs. the 3N sides. He has always had talented players available. Player pool doesn't matter if you always have say 30-40 decent individuals capable of playing test rugby.

fa0019 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We've drawn against SA lately. WC is a good time to get that monkey off the back though!

Be tough... either they meet in QF after coming runners up in group (i.e. losing to either Wales or Australia) or in the final after SA beat NZ.
Games have never been run away's to be fair. The points diff in the 5 games in this RWC cycle between the 2 teams have been (3,1,0,9 & 5). Never double figures.

One thing I would worry about if I was Lancaster is that rain or shine, bad performance or good performance, the boks always seem to win in the end vs. England. England had it over the boks during the SCW era. It's a winning mentality and perhaps a losing mentality within the England players. It certainly matters, I reckon many teams turn up to face NZ thinking they will lose before kickoff... with doubts such as the this its no surprise so few get over the line on them.

fa0019 I do believe in winning mentalities but eventually most records do get overturned.

As teams get closer to each other in terms of ability then a win becomes more likely obviously.

I feel like England are closing the gap on SA and will win in the next year or two if not this Autumn.

Wales got their first win under Gatland against a tri nations team for a long time last autumn - perhaps that will help get the monkey off their back.

Really interesting comparing Gatland and Lancaster win ratios.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Lancaster_(rugby)

Lancaster 63% win rate compared to Gatland 51% - admittedly Gatland has been in charge of more matches.

3,1,10 -England vs tri nations under Lancaster
2,0,23 - Wales vs tri nations under Gatland

With Gatland its a roller coaster.... great highs great lows. His 3 GS out of 8 is pretty impressive not inc. the Lions.

Lancaster's steady eddy approach is admiral but I think if I could prefer one of the 2 I'd prefer ultimate success with a dash of embarassing failure... rather than a conservative record such is Lancaster's.

I'd also say that with England he has a lot of talent too.... people always make up he took over a shambles of a side... they were GS champs when he took over.

It was a bit of a shambles when took over the 6N champs, no grand slam though.