England Squad Announcement - 27/08/2014

First topic message reminder :

England 2015 Rugby World Cup squad

Props:
Kieran Brookes (Northampton Saints, 10 caps)
Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 51 caps)
Joe Marler (Harlequins, 32 caps)
Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 22 caps)
David Wilson (Bath Rugby, 43 caps)

Hookers:
Jamie George (Saracens, 1 cap)
Rob Webber (Bath Rugby, 13 caps)
Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 23 caps)

Second rows:
George Kruis (Saracens, 8 caps)
Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 23 caps)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 39 caps)
Geoff Parling (Exeter Chiefs, 24 caps)

Back rows:
James Haskell (Wasps, 60 caps)
Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby, 28 caps)
Chris Robshaw (captain, Harlequins, 38 caps)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens, 18 caps)
Tom Wood (Northampton Saints, 37 caps)

Scrum halves:
Danny Care (Harlequins, 52 caps)
Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens, 22 caps)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 48 caps)

Fly halves:
Owen Farrell (Saracens, 30 caps)
George Ford (Bath Rugby, 12 caps)

Centres:
Brad Barritt (Saracens, 22 caps)
Sam Burgess (Bath Rugby, 1 cap)
Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 12 caps)
Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 1 cap)

Back three:
Mike Brown (Harlequins, 38 caps)
Alex Goode (Saracens, 18 caps)
Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby, 15 caps)
Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 9 caps)
Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, 10 caps)

GeordieFalcon wrote:The play left and right though Dr.

As Lancaster started things to stabalise the team etc...yes it workd great. But im not sure that combo...or just a left right flank combo will take us forward...

But what's the alternative? Fraser and Saull are both regularly injured at the wrong time, Kvesic has been around the squad for long enough that it's clear the coaches see him as missing something important. Armitage has taken himself out of the running (and I don't believe the hype anyway; the evidence is that he gives away as much ball as he wins).

The best prospect at openside might be Clifford (who can play 6, 7 and 8 but is probably too small for 8 by international standards), but he has only emerged as a senior player in the last 6 months. I expect we will see him after the world cup, but it would have been a huge call to include him now.

Poorfour,

I agree many of the alternatives hav'nt been available...Fraser was the hope, but is made of glass for example.

But Kvesic for me is the issue. He has been very very good for Glos this season. England have had the summer tour, the AI's, the 6n and yet he hasn't featured in one game I don't think. However will anyone know if he's any good unless he's been trialled?
Same as Clark. He's taken up a squad space for how long and only just got his first game????? Why?

Likewise Ewers at 6 with Wood injured / out of form and Haskell his usual hot and cold self? Maybe Burgess will get a shot.

I try not to be ctritical with Lancaster, I respect what he has done....there are just a few little things I think he could work on.

GeordieFalcon wrote:The play left and right though Dr.

As Lancaster started things to stabalise the team etc...yes it workd great. But im not sure that combo...or just a left right flank combo will take us forward...

A lot of Rugby teams are migrating towards the left-right v. the traditional open-blind. I like the idea of Clark at 6 and Wood at 7. They work together extremely well. But I know it won't happen for England.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Skills are great but if you have no brute strength at 12 then you will be smashed to pieces.

Slade at 12 would be a nightmare. He's a 10. It would be like seeing Charlie Hodgson vs. France in 2002 all over again. If you want him to play 12 then he needs at least 12 months of conditioning.

Slade is 6'2 and 14st. Hes not a stick...and he's a very strong tackler. Would be nothing like Hodgson.

You need your piano carriers, your piano players. I can imagine the opposition laughing their faces off the minute they saw a 9,10,12,13 backline  of Care, Ford, Slade & Joseph. It would be lambs to the slaughter.

Im not sure they'd be laughing after a while.

Options at 6?

Wood, Croft, Robshaw (a real 6 whatever anyone says), Haskell, Itoje, (Ewers I think is the impressive youngster at Gloucester or Exeter???). Vunipola can also play 6 if needs be.

Wood is not the imposing 6 required.
Croft is made of glass nor the imposing 6 required
Robshaw - I would happily move him to 6
Haskell has proved he will never meet the consistency requirments
Itoje - Could certainly be one...but talk is he'll be a lock
Ewers - Should be in the squad now.

So that's Robshaw who is inked in at 7.
And two with huge potential who haven't even been trialled by Lancaster.

Name any 12s? Barritt, 36...... not so deep.

Barritt
Burrell
Slade
Stephenson
Hill
Quins have a lump of a lad coming through aswell.

We have lots of options post WC at 12.

I would add Devoto to the list. Bath quote him 100+ kgs and 6' 4''.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Skills are great but if you have no brute strength at 12 then you will be smashed to pieces.

Slade at 12 would be a nightmare. He's a 10. It would be like seeing Charlie Hodgson vs. France in 2002 all over again. If you want him to play 12 then he needs at least 12 months of conditioning.

Slade is 6'2 and 14st. Hes not a stick...and he's a very strong tackler. Would be nothing like Hodgson.

You need your piano carriers, your piano players. I can imagine the opposition laughing their faces off the minute they saw a 9,10,12,13 backline  of Care, Ford, Slade & Joseph. It would be lambs to the slaughter.

Im not sure they'd be laughing after a while.

Options at 6?

Wood, Croft, Robshaw (a real 6 whatever anyone says), Haskell, Itoje, (Ewers I think is the impressive youngster at Gloucester or Exeter???). Vunipola can also play 6 if needs be.

Wood is not the imposing 6 required.
Croft is made of glass nor the imposing 6 required
Robshaw - I would happily move him to 6
Haskell has proved he will never meet the consistency requirments
Itoje - Could certainly be one...but talk is he'll be a lock
Ewers - Should be in the squad now.

So that's Robshaw who is inked in at 7.
And two with huge potential who haven't even been trialled by Lancaster.

Name any 12s? Barritt, 36...... not so deep.

Barritt
Burrell
Slade
Stephenson
Hill
Quins have a lump of a lad coming through aswell.

We have lots of options post WC at 12.

I would add Devoto to the list. Bath quote him 100+ kgs and 6' 4''.

Yes I always forget about him CB.

I just think post world cup we have far more potential at 12 than we do coming through at 6

Of course that's just my opinion...and not worth very much...

Potential 6s, Burgess, Clifford, Itoje, Slater, Ewers?

Im going to burst!

Burgess is in

Burrell is out

No room for Easter

Attwood is out

Telegraph:

Props:

Kieran Brookes (Northampton Saints, 10 caps)
Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 51 caps)
Joe Marler (Harlequins, 32 caps)
Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 22 caps)
David Wilson (Bath Rugby, 43 caps)

Hookers:

Jamie George (Saracens, 1 cap)
Rob Webber (Bath Rugby, 13 caps)
Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 23 caps)

Second rows:

George Kruis (Saracens, 8 caps)
Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 23 caps)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 39 caps)
Geoff Parling (Exeter Chiefs, 24 caps)

Back rows:

James Haskell (Wasps, 60 caps)
Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby, 28 caps)
Chris Robshaw (captain, Harlequins, 38 caps)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens, 18 caps)
Tom Wood (Northampton Saints, 37 caps)

Scrum halves:

Danny Care (Harlequins, 52 caps)
Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens, 22 caps)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 48 caps)

Fly halves:

Owen Farrell (Saracens, 30 caps)
George Ford (Bath Rugby, 12 caps)

Centres:

Brad Barritt (Saracens, 22 caps)
Sam Burgess (Bath Rugby, 1 cap)
Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 12 caps)
Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 1 cap)

Back three:

Mike Brown (Harlequins, 38 caps)
Alex Goode (Saracens, 18 caps)
Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby, 15 caps)

Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 9 caps)
Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, 10 caps)

And the answers are Brookes, Kruis, Morgan, Burgess, Slade and Goode.

Surprised Morgan was regarded as fit enough, but otherwise much as expected.

RFU


England 2015 Rugby World Cup squad

Props

Kieran Brookes (Northampton Saints, 10 caps)
Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 51 caps)
Joe Marler (Harlequins, 32 caps)
Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 22 caps)
David Wilson (Bath Rugby, 43 caps)

Hookers

Jamie George (Saracens, 1 cap)
Rob Webber (Bath Rugby, 13 caps)
Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 23 caps)

Second rows

George Kruis (Saracens, 8 caps)
Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 23 caps)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 39 caps)
Geoff Parling (Exeter Chiefs, 24 caps)

Back rows

James Haskell (Wasps, 60 caps)
Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby, 28 caps)
Chris Robshaw (captain, Harlequins, 38 caps)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens, 18 caps)
Tom Wood (Northampton Saints, 37 caps)

Scrum halves

Danny Care (Harlequins, 52 caps)
Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens, 22 caps)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 48 caps)

Fly halves

Owen Farrell (Saracens, 30 caps)
George Ford (Bath Rugby, 12 caps)

Centres

Brad Barritt (Saracens, 22 caps)
Sam Burgess (Bath Rugby, 1 cap)
Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 12 caps)
Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 1 cap)

Back three

Mike Brown (Harlequins, 38 caps)
Alex Goode (Saracens, 18 caps)
Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby, 15 caps)
Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 9 caps)
Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, 10 caps)

The backrow looks a little unbalanced.

Maybe they think Morgan is improving fast enough to make it worthwhile.

We can start arguing over possible injury replacements next
Cips/Corbs must be definitely on the list. If a 2nd row needs replacing do they go Attwood or Easter?

I thought Easter would have been picked as general cover for 4-8.

Aside from that I guess there aren't too many surprises given the media has been leaking all week. A lot has been said about Burgess but lets be honest, he is probably only going to play against Uruguay.

Attwood is a bit unlucky, but in a way it doesn't matter who is 4th choice lock. Now focus on getting the set piece right in training lads!

Just hope Barritt is in one piece. Not a good sign that he hasn't played yet.

Bathman_in_London wrote:I thought Easter would have been picked as general cover for 4-8.

Aside from that I guess there aren't too many surprises given the media has been leaking all week. A lot has been said about Burgess but lets be honest, he is probably only going to play against Uruguay.

Attwood is a bit unlucky, but in a way it doesn't matter who is 4th choice lock. Now focus on getting the set piece right in training lads!

Given how the set-piece has been going I think there's an argument for Attwood as a starting lock, though. I agree with the point though - a lot of tight calls will be of little consequence. Centre is probably the area here this is least true, as Barritt's tight calf could mean one of them nicking the starting jersey.

thomh wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:I thought Easter would have been picked as general cover for 4-8.

Aside from that I guess there aren't too many surprises given the media has been leaking all week. A lot has been said about Burgess but lets be honest, he is probably only going to play against Uruguay.

Attwood is a bit unlucky, but in a way it doesn't matter who is 4th choice lock. Now focus on getting the set piece right in training lads!

Given how the set-piece has been going I think there's an argument for Attwood as a starting lock, though. I agree with the point though - a lot of tight calls will be of little consequence. Centre is probably the area here this is least true, as Barritt's tight calf could mean one of them nicking the starting jersey.

I think there is that argument (and one I would probably agree with) but I think SL will do his best to get certain players on the pitch, in particular Barritt, Launchberry, Lawes and Wood will have to be in plaster to not start the big games.

Why on earth is Barritt considered such a nailed-on starter? England's best backs rugby over the last 4 years pretty much directly aligns with the times Barritt hasn't been playing, so far as I can see... and he is coming back from injury, so you can't say diddly about his current form.

Barritt is considered nailed on because he defends so well and coordinates the defence too (he is defensive captain). That's Lancaster's reasoning anyway...

Barritt is the balance between the diddly 10 and 13, plus will lead the defence, and runs some good lines

I was a big critic, but am in favour of him starting now

Barritt is in because he is the one inside center who hasn't managed to wreck his chances by his performance on the pitch.

Unfortunately that is a lot to do with him not playing at all..

I do think he may be the answer but it would be nice if it was proved

England's victory over New Zealand 2012 with Barritt - probably our best performance/win under Lancaster.

Absence makes the heart grow forward. he's in for his own defence and the impression that having him there will make others defence better. Not so sure on that second bit.

To be fair to him as well he's a good carrier and has got decent vision if not quite the range of passing.

If he's fit... Or in form... And he's still horribly limited, and slow and easy to stop.

Happy enough with the props - two proven performers in each position plus Brooks has looked decent when given a chance.

Hookers? Well, once Hartley was suspended and LC-D imploded, it was the obvious choice. Big question marks though over Youngs set piece work (I think the scrum problems are in part due to his lack of height relative to the props). I can honestly see Jamie George being the first choice by the end of the tournament.

2nd row: Lawes and Launchbury are class at what they do, and have played well together in the past. Parling the obvious replacement as a line-out specialist, so then a coin toss between Kruis, Attwood and Easter. SL has gone for the most 'like for like' option. Given that L & L will start every major game if fit, and Parling will likely be on the bench, I don't see a big issue.

Back Row: Happy that Morgan must be fit enough, and so 8 is a position of real strength. Flankers are as I expected. Robshaw needs to get back to his best hard-working form if we are to have a chance. Be interesting to see if Burgess is considered as even emergency cover at 6

Scrum half: Again, happy enough that Youngs and Care have both shown themselves capable of world class performances (if not world class consistency...), and Wiggy is at least a competent pro as back-up.

Outside half: As with SH, Ford and Farrell have both shown high quality at international level. Are we a bit light in back-up though if either Goode or Slade are covering there in case of a knock to either...

Back 3: Again, happy with the quality and depth. Other than Brown, there isn't much experience, but three exciting young wingers.

Centres: Have to assume that Barritt and Joseph are pencilled in as the first choice. Slade looks very promising as a utility back, so could easily spend a lot of time bench warming. Burgess v Burrell v 12trees? Well, SL has gone for the guy who has potentially the biggest up-side but also potentially the biggest problems (at least as a centre) - Burrell and 36 have had chances to claim the 12 spot over the last couple of seasons, but have fallen short, and Eastmond was presumably judged to small to play between Ford and JJ, so I can see the justification for picking Burgess (not saying that I agree with it, just that there is a logic there).

My summary though - we have a lot of good players and a few very good ones. Do we have sufficient outstanding ones to make the difference? I don't think so. Squad depth is pretty good for props, 2nd row and 8, half-backs and back 3. Questions over the hooker and 12 and the balance and depth at flanker*.

I do think we have a stronger squad in terms of drop off behind the starters than many of the other major teams, and that will help at the group stage, but a couple of magic players would tip the balance from a squad that has an outside chance to a relatively strong one - at the moment I have NZ as favourites, SA next then a cluster with England, Ireland, Australia and maybe France (if PSA actually picks his best available team) as realistic outsiders. Wales have a good enough XV to be in that cluster but I think have more issues with squad depth.

* Unless SL has been having everyone on, and Burgess has been flying at 6 in 'behind closed doors' training, and the whole picking him at 12 is just a ruse...

d_h Youngs doesn't seem to have too much of a problem with the set piece at Tigers where he scrums with Cole so could the scrum problems come from the loose head? As for the lineout IIRC he has the best % in the Aviva

Because he does simple passes to the first man.

Barritt fans might want to look away from the following wreckage.

Stats: All games vs. Tier 1 under Lancaster (coincides with the period since Barritt's first appearance) EDIT: should have noted these were self-compiled, have since found one mistake. They are certainly broadly accurate though.

Backs tries per game:
With Barritt: 0.76 0.94
Without Barritt: 2.23

Wings tries per game:
With Barritt: 0.18
Without Barritt: 0.73

So the backs score almost three times as many tries without him, and the wings over four times as many.

You might think Barritt is disadvantaged by playing mostly during the 2012-13 period when the team might be perceived as generally weaker than the current one. Well let's split it by era.

2012-2013
Barritt: 0.79/0.14 1.00/0.14
Non-Barritt: 1.85/0.57

2014-2015
Barritt: 0.66/0.33
Non-Barritt: 2.40/0.80

So that might account for some of the difference, but it seems conclusive that in both the earlier and latter parts of Lancaster's reign, selecting Barritt is associated with a major decrease in the number of tries score out wide. It also suggests that a major reason for our improvement in the backs since 2013 is the frequent absence of Barritt during that period.

I think what we see at work here could be a factor that is hard to appreciate by coaches drilling down into individual statistics and play-by-play analysis. My theory is that having a player on the field who presents no great threat, and doesn't demand close attention, the defence are free to focus more attention on other players. Except where the forwards have created an imbalance in numbers, it is hard to score tries out wide when you are carrying players who don't occupy the defence's minds.

EDIT: BACKS TRIES CONCEDED PER GAME: With Barritt 1.12; Without Barritt 1.36

Which is why Farrell should also only be at 12 in an emergency. I hope things can work with Barritt, because the other known options are less inspiring on current form.

I'd bet the best number of tries out wide were scored with 36 at 12. Shame he isnt in better form.

lostinwales wrote:Just hope Barritt is in one piece. Not a good sign that he hasn't played yet.

+100

You all can moan as much as you like, he's still our best IC.

lostinwales wrote:Which is why Farrell should also only be at 12 in an emergency. I hope things can work with Barritt, because the other known options are less inspiring on current form.

I'd bet the best number of tries out wide were scored with 36 at 12. Shame he isnt in better form.

It's been pretty consistently high without Barritt - I can't be bothered to do exact stats but there have been plenty of tries scored with any of 36, Eastmond or Burrell there. Even when we played Burgess there. When we played 36 at 12 with Barritt at 13 they dried up again.

I added above a stat for tries conceded showing we have performed slightly better with Barritt leading the wide defence. Not in the same ballpark as the gap in attacking performances though.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Just hope Barritt is in one piece. Not a good sign that he hasn't played yet.

+100

You all can moan as much as you like, he's still our best IC.

Is he the best fit for the team is the question. Do we need to play Goode to get a better blance and does that weaken us at full back?

Here's my question about the selection of Burgess: in what circumstances is he expected to play?

We might usually rest first choice players against Fiji but it will be our opening game of the tournament. More than that, Barritt and Joseph will only have had one game together (assuming they team up for Ireland) so a second one seems a good idea before taking on Wales and Australia.

So, he's an unlikely starter. What about the bench?

That seems like a bad idea to me. With a 5 forwards/3 backs split, two of the backs will be replacement half backs. Burgess only covers centre. An injury to one of the back three would have to see Joseph move to the wing (unless the scrum half replacement goes there instead). I'm not sure a Barritt/Burgess midfield is the stuff our dreams are made of.

Could he instead be a flanker/centre replacement? Not if he hasn't trained there, surely.

As far, as I can see, Burgess gets a game against Uruguay and that's his lot. We are either out of the tournament, or the guys starting are getting the job done, in which case they ought to get the nod for the knock-out stages.

Unless, of course, he's the main back up to Barritt, and would jump straight into a starting slot should the Saracens man have to cry off a match. The prospect doesn't fill me with joy

Well I'm glad that's over, lets just get behind the lads.

On another subject I'm fed up with reading newspaper sites comments sections on how Daniel Cipranny and Stephen Armitage Shanks should be playing and how we'll never win the Joules Rimet trophy with Robshall and barrat in the starting XI for the British Tigers team. Where do these bandwagon fans come from?

wi11 not sure where you get these "stats" but they are pretty flawed.

England outscored France in the try department in the recent game but they lost. The boot was more important.

2015? Not even sure Barritt played in an England match this year.

As for 2014 he didn't start in any 6 nations game. In the AIs it was messy as you had him shunted to 13 and playing in a weird 10- centre combo.

2012-13 - not easy playing in a backline in transition. Winning was more important and 8/10 in those 6 nations.

Some of England's best wins like vs Australia, NZ and Ireland away were with Barritt in there.

He was also playing 13 when England demolished Scotland in 2013.

Barritt hasn't really had a fair go in an attacking backline IMO. The theory that he will completely make the whole backline stodgy hasn't been proven because he's not been given a proper go.

He's been picked for the reasons screamingaddabs and Bambam have said. He's seen as the defensive glue which will keep the England side from going unstuck.

He's never been a particularly fashionable player but he's a solid dependable rock who will help the inexperienced Ford. As long as he's fit.

Just hoping Lancaster doesn't do a Johnson and reverts to a more conservative game plan. I don't think England are favourites or even 2nd favourites but I think playing a more attacknig game gives us the best chance.

How many times has Barrit played outside Ford rather than Farrel? Could that have had as much influence on the backs scoring?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just hoping Lancaster doesn't do a Johnson and reverts to a more conservative game plan. I don't think England are favourites or even 2nd favourites but I think playing a more attacknig game gives us the best chance.

I'm not really sure I see massive differences between the top teams.  Sure, the ABs are favourites, but I don't see massive differences.  England could certainly sneak it, and I don't think that would be an upset.  But, my spidy senses are telling me this could be the year that France does up all the Anglos and wins.  Sacre merde!

no 7 & 1/2 interesting you mention Johnson because Lancaster would be doing a Johnson if he sticks Farrell at 12....

You talk about an attacking game - do attacking games really win RWCs? Or is it more about hard nosed defence?

The worry about Barritt IMO is his lack of gametime at international level and he's not played with Joseph yet.

doctor_grey wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just hoping Lancaster doesn't do a Johnson and reverts to a more conservative game plan. I don't think England are favourites or even 2nd favourites but I think playing a more attacknig game gives us the best chance.

I'm not really sure I see massive differences between the top teams.  Sure, the ABs are favourites, but I don't see massive differences.  England could certainly sneak it, and I don't think that would be an upset.  But, my spidy senses are telling me this could be the year that France does up all the Anglos and wins.  Sacre merde!

Can't see France beating Ireland, in all departments Ireland look better.

An AUS vs. SA final is my pick.

France sneaked past one of the worst England performances in years, at home. They have been dire in the 6 Nations.

I don't see how there is any cause for predicting them to win it at all.

If a NH team does win it, it will be Ireland. That's who I'm putting my money on.

The Burgess selection is an absolute joke, SL has lost the plot.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:The Burgess selection is an absolute joke, SL has lost the plot.

So one selection invalidates the other 30?

fa0019 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just hoping Lancaster doesn't do a Johnson and reverts to a more conservative game plan. I don't think England are favourites or even 2nd favourites but I think playing a more attacknig game gives us the best chance.

I'm not really sure I see massive differences between the top teams.  Sure, the ABs are favourites, but I don't see massive differences.  England could certainly sneak it, and I don't think that would be an upset.  But, my spidy senses are telling me this could be the year that France does up all the Anglos and wins.  Sacre merde!

Can't see France beating Ireland, in all departments Ireland look better.

An AUS vs. SA final is my pick.

fa0019 Write off the French at your peril. Their coach might be barking mad as is generally the case with French coaches but they have a lot of dangerous players who if they perform could cause problems for any team.

Doctor Grey I don't think the French will win but I agree that other teams should be wary.

beshocked wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just hoping Lancaster doesn't do a Johnson and reverts to a more conservative game plan. I don't think England are favourites or even 2nd favourites but I think playing a more attacknig game gives us the best chance.

I'm not really sure I see massive differences between the top teams.  Sure, the ABs are favourites, but I don't see massive differences.  England could certainly sneak it, and I don't think that would be an upset.  But, my spidy senses are telling me this could be the year that France does up all the Anglos and wins.  Sacre merde!

Can't see France beating Ireland, in all departments Ireland look better.

An AUS vs. SA final is my pick.

fa0019 Write off the French at your peril. Their coach might be barking mad as is generally the case with French coaches but they have a lot of dangerous players who if they perform could cause problems for any team.

Doctor Grey I don't think the French will win but I agree that other teams should be wary.

In their past shocks they had great players, a great team even but were just performing badly. This time its not the case.

In 1999 - they were 97 & 98 GS champs. The team was still together but the 99 5N was a disaster for some reason.

In 2007 - they were 6N champs in 2004, 2006 and 2007 and ranked 2 in the world before the tournament kicked off.

In 2011 to be fair they only played a poor England and 14 men of Wales to get to the final (inc. a loss to Tonga).

However their team is simply not up to standard compared. They don't have the ability IMO to pull the rabbit out of the hat.