England vs Australia, 3 October

First topic message reminder :

    
ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA
3 October 2015
KO: 20:00
Twickenham, London

Live on [tbc]

Referee: Romain Poite (France)
Touch judges: George Clancy (Ireland) & Marius Mitrea (Italy)
Television match official: Shaun Veldsman (South Africa)

A. Head to Head

43 Played 43
18 Won 24
1 Drawn 1
24 Lost 18
661 Points 907

B. Recent Form

29 November 2014
Twickenham, London
26 – 17 to England

2 November 2013
Twickenham, London
20 – 13 to England

17 November 2012
Twickenham, London
14 – 20 to Australia

13 November 2010
Twickenham, London
35 – 18 to England

19 June 2010
Telstra Stadium, Sydney
20 – 21 to England

12 June 2010
Subiaco Oval, Perth
27 – 17 to Australia

7 November 2009
Twickenham, London
9 – 18 to Australia

15 November 2008
Twickenham, London
14 – 28 to Australia

6 October 2007
Stade Vélodrome, Marseille, France
10 – 12 to England

C. Teams

ENGLAND

15. Mike Brown (Harlequins, 41 caps)
14. Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, 13 caps)
13. Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 14 caps)
12. Brad Barritt (Saracens, 25 caps)
11. Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby, 18 caps)
10. Owen Farrell (Saracens, 33 caps)
9. Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 51 caps)

1. Joe Marler (Harlequins, 35 caps)
2. Tom Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 26 caps)
3. Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 54 caps)
4. Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 26 caps)
5. Geoff Parling (Exeter Chiefs, 27 caps)
6. Tom Wood (Northampton Saints, 40 caps)
7. Chris Robshaw (captain, Harlequins, 41 caps)
8. Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby, 30 caps)

16. Rob Webber (Bath Rugby, 15 caps)
17. Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 25 caps)
18. Kieran Brookes (Northampton Saints, 14 caps)
19. George Kruis (Saracens, 8 caps)
20. Nick Easter (Harlequins, 52 caps)
21. Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens, 25 caps)
22. George Ford (Bath Rugby, 15 caps)
23. Sam Burgess (Bath Rugby, 4 caps)

AUSTRALIA

1. Scott Sio (12 Tests)
2. Stephen Moore (c) (97 Tests)
3. Sekope Kepu (58 Tests)
4. Kane Douglas (18 Tests)
5. Rob Simmons (55 Tests)
6. Scott Fardy (25 Tests)
7. Michael Hooper (vc) (47 Tests)
8. David Pocock (51 Tests)

9. Will Genia (61 Tests)
10. Bernard Foley (22 Tests)
11. Rob Horne (28 Tests)
12. Matt Giteau (97 Tests)
13. Tevita Kuridrani (25 Tests)
14. Adam Ashley-Cooper (vc) (109 Tests)
15. Israel Folau (34 Tests)

*Reserves to be confirmed

SL is saving Slade and Nowell for Uruguay.

beshocked

"You're telling me a winger shouldn't try and beat a no.8?"

It's off the current debate, but I wonder how many others were at Cardiff Arms Park in 1962 for the Wales v France game.
We were gobsmacked to see the Welsh no.8, Alun Pask, chase down one of the fastest men in European rugby, the French wing Henri Rancoule.
Pask was going the other way when Rancoule got the ball with a clear run down the right wing. It would have been a 70 metre try.
Pask turned and caught Rancoule over about 50 metres, tackling him to prevent a certain score. There were no other players of either side anywhere near them.
Wales won the game 3-0, with Pask selected for the Lions as a result.

TightHEAD wrote:SL is saving Slade and Nowell for Uruguay.

Yup, a game that couldn't matter any less. We may well be out the tournament by then. Bet Nowell and Slade do well in it though...

They will blow them away.

yappysnap wrote:Who else is looking forward to that special moment on the 60 min mark when JJ is subbed off regardless of form, to allow for the dream team Burgess/Barrett to finish the game...

I think SL has learnt his lesson, he sub him on 62mins.

Na, he'll realise that its a bad idea and stick him on the wing instead and sub off Watson

no 7 & 1/2 I don't think I have ever heard you criticise certain players.

Will you ever do that?


Bambam you come up with the same old %&* about Ashton.

Ashton has plenty of flaws, unlike May and Watson who can do no wrong........

Hongkongcherry

Yep the right choice.... that's why the result was a penalty to Wales.... that's why he failed to score a try with an opportunity there. Wasn't the easiest opportunity I will admit but if Watson wants to be a match winner and wants to be labelled as "world class" or even very good he needs to back himself in these kind of situations.

He outpaced TF after kicking the ball away yes but he wasn't the first player to the ball was he?

Instead of trying to beat a number 8 with his pace (which if he had would have had no Welsh players ahead of him). he decided to rely on the fickle bounce on the ball, needing to get to the ball before 3 Welsh defenders and even if he did then he would have likely been isolated.

little badger opportunities like this can win you matches. You might think it's small but if Watson gets past Faletau and scored a try......

When some of you you never acknowledge that these players anything wrong it's not surprising that I get frustated.

You never criticise May, never criticise Watson - it's understandable why I get the impression you believe they are deities.

The likes of May and Watson are above criticism, above mistakes hence why I believe you think they are gods.

Some of you are so thick because you believe I criticise them because I want Ashton back. I am not too bothered if Ashton comes back or not to be honest. I just want England to be the best they can be and win matches.

I criticise them because I think they are overrated. Solid 6/10 for England for both players. They are not bad, they didn't do anything against Wales and Fiji that warrants dropping them but then again they haven't done anything particularly that suggests that these guys are very good or "world class".

Which players beshocked? I don't criticise 'world class deities' but everyone else is open for review.

Just got to the bit where you call people thick again! You're so grumpy these days!

no 7 & 1/2 You've never criticised Ford,May or Watson for example.

I guess they count as "world class deities"?

I am grumpy because England lost another massive game under Lancaster.

I wouldn't be if England had closed out the last 20 like they should have.

May and Watson weren't the reason we lost but like every other England player they could have done something better.

I have highlighted this Watson opportunity because it was just one moment when England could have scored a try which could have made the difference.

If England and players have aspirations to be the best in the world then small opportunities like that need to be taken.

I don't want to be talking about what ifs, I would much rather talk about English wins, not English failure.

Looking at the stats
May scored a straightforward try, did a lovely little break to beat two Welsh defenders on his own line before shipping the ball to Brown for a good clearance
Made 6 tackles missed one. 6 runs for 57m
Watson
8 runs 71m made 1 tackle missed another
Wales
North
9 runs 50m 3 tackles made 1 missed
Amos
4 runs 4m 1 tackle made 2 missed...

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which players beshocked? I don't criticise 'world class deities' but everyone else is open for review.

Not to leap to the defence of Beshocked, but it is entirely obvious from his post who he is referring to!

Danny Cipriani wrote:England's players know what they can do and they only just touched the tip of the iceberg against Wales. They didn't quite put the nail in the coffin, but if it all clicks together on Saturday, Australia won't have an answer.

Not one Australian would get into that England team right now. The Aussies will be fired up, but when it comes down to it, head-to-head England are too strong.

England's defensive structure combined with the attacking weapons they have at their disposal make it hard to see past an England win.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/13791900/danny-cipriani-says-no-australia-players-get-england-team

beshocked wrote: no 7 & 1/2 You've never criticised Ford,May or Watson for example.

I guess they count as "world class deities"?

I can't remember if I've criticised them or not. The world class deities was a joke just in case you're too 'thick' to get it. I don't think there's anyone world class in the England team if world class is getting in a world 15. POssibly Brown at a push but lots of comp or Hartley if he were actually playing.

I don't really remember either having mares for quite a long time. May was so so when he came into the team but not horrendous and it's certainly true I like to give players bedding in time when they get into the team.

I certainly don't think they deserve criticism for the Wales game as they did nothing wrong.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which players beshocked? I don't criticise 'world class deities' but everyone else is open for review.

Not to leap to the defence of Beshocked, but it is entirely obvious from his post who he is referring to!

Yeah I know but he's becoming quite aggressive and grouchy and more one eyed and hypocritical.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Danny Cipriani wrote:England's players know what they can do and they only just touched the tip of the iceberg against Wales. They didn't quite put the nail in the coffin, but if it all clicks together on Saturday, Australia won't have an answer.

Not one Australian would get into that England team right now. The Aussies will be fired up, but when it comes down to it, head-to-head England are too strong.

England's defensive structure combined with the attacking weapons they have at their disposal make it hard to see past an England win.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/13791900/danny-cipriani-says-no-australia-players-get-england-team

wow....

Whilst I would expect England to lose, I must admit that there is also a chance that everything does click. We have shown a few times in the past that when it does click we can beat anyone, even the ABs. It has always been consistency we lack. We need to click tomorrow. I don't think we will, but if we do we could beat Australia handsomely (but we won't).

One thing we will find out is "which Australia has come to the world cup?". They've not been properly tested yet. Their form has been a bit erratic. If they beat England then I think they could well win the whole thing. If they lose then they have no chance of winning the whole thing.

Hardly an opportunity when you're at the touchline with 60m to go to the tryline

The reason I talk about Ashton, is because I'm pretty sure if he came back in you'd suddenly find a myriad of reasons that the back 3 isn't being used properly, and its not his fault, and its all Lancaster's game plan

Its pointless anyway, you like to look at every decision with the benefit of hindsight.

Watson's kick would have resulted in a lineout on the 22 for England if the pen wasn't given (either for a ridiculous call of him falling on the player or for Farrell making a late tackle, not sure which now).

Him running at Faletau would most likely have meant that he was barrelled into touch 30m from our try line with a Wales throw coming

And as for being thick, I don't think you're the sharpest tool in the box but I don't insult you in every other post, even if I do enjoy a little argument here and there

I was genuinely beginning to warm to Danny in his new 'speaking' role on TV.  Seemed quite measured and reasonable in his comments.

That one there kinda made up for lost time though!  Danny's back on the strut

Not one Australian would get into the England team?  Not even as benchers?  

I think he's absolutely right.  They've been much too busy being on the Aussie team - habitual third or second in the World rankings is a tough place to be - you can't be spreading yourself too thinly by popping over to the England team as well.

Well I for one agree with Danny. Barritt over Giteau any day...

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Danny Cipriani wrote:England's players know what they can do and they only just touched the tip of the iceberg against Wales. They didn't quite put the nail in the coffin, but if it all clicks together on Saturday, Australia won't have an answer.

Not one Australian would get into that England team right now. The Aussies will be fired up, but when it comes down to it, head-to-head England are too strong.

England's defensive structure combined with the attacking weapons they have at their disposal make it hard to see past an England win.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/13791900/danny-cipriani-says-no-australia-players-get-england-team

wow....

He's right - England tend to prefer Saffers, kiwis and Tongans.

No 7 & 1/2 see I don't understand why you call me one eyed.

I have criticised Farrell's restarts that were very poor, when he moved to centre he looked unsettled and played pretty poorly.

In that Watson incident he wildly did a late tackle which he does far too often.

Barritt was one of the players guilty for the Welsh try and thought he looked sluggish in the last 20.

Wigglesworth didn't play particularly well.

I am quite even handed actually unlike you who thinks that the likes of Ford,Watson and May do no wrong.


If 6/10 is good enough for you then yes May and Watson did no wrong. Unfortunately England needed someone to grab the game by the scruff of the neck.

A try by Watson by beating Faletau would have been just the moment England needed. Wasn't the easiest opportunity in the world but not impossible.

I don't think May and Watson were bad, I thought they were okay just like most of the England team but we didn't win the match did we?

You're one eyed as you seem desperate most of the time to fit your view of matches to your narrative. You've been praying for mistakes from May and now Watson but nothing really to back it up you're now trying to single out Watson . In the grand scheme of things the Enlgish wings are way down the list of things which went wrong last Saturday. I'm still looking at the midfield we put out last Saturday and thinking why on earth did we do that. You say you're not happy with the loss and 6 out of 10 performances but what else was that midfield going to deliver last week? They were designed to stop Wales with attack as an afterthought; not good enough.

Anyone daring to back a player who they think weren't at fault are said to be thinking those players are world class, deities etc whereas in most cases, certainly for me anyway, they perceive your criticisms as harsh and unjustified. You then start calling people thick as they dare discuss something on a forum.

Bambam it's not hindsight. At the time I wondered, why wasn't.,Watson trying to outpace Faletau. Still baffled.

He's not right at the touch line, he has some room to work with and he could have cut inside, wrong footing Faletau and scorching in for a try if he just kept his pace instead of kicking.

It's just one moment in the game. I know that. By the way I am not claiming England lost because Watson didn't take this opportunity.

I insult you because you keep banging on about Ashton and accuse me of bias plus you come looking to argue with me.

As for not getting the best out of wingers, you could argue that Lancaster is still not getting the best from them regardless of who it is.

I want England to win, even that means no Saracens in the XV so be it.

I am frustated every single time England loses, especially when it is for stupid avoidable reasons.

What is Ashton up too these days?

I would have thought ITV would have had him on as a pundit to try and connect to the North of England.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're one eyed as you seem desperate most of the time to fit your view of matches to your narrative. You've been praying for mistakes from May and now Watson but nothing really to back it up you're now trying to single out Watson . In the grand scheme of things the Enlgish wings are way down the list of things which went wrong last Saturday. I'm still looking at the midfield we put out last Saturday and thinking why on earth did we do that. You say you're not happy with the loss and 6 out of 10 performances but what else was that midfield going to deliver last week? They were designed to stop Wales with attack as an afterthought; not good enough.

Anyone daring to back a player who they think weren't at fault are said to be thinking those players are world class, deities etc whereas in most cases, certainly for me anyway, they perceive your criticisms as harsh and unjustified. You then start calling people thick as they dare discuss something on a forum.

No I have not been praying for May and Watson mistakes.

I wouldn't be happier if May or Watson had scored a match winning try vs Wales (May almost had the match winner). I thought May was actually pretty solid in this game, sure his try was straightforward but he was part of a English backline that for the most part kept Wales quiet.

Would have liked to see a try scoring scorcher but to notch up a try was good nonetheless.

As for Watson I think he's been okay for England but I really wanted to see him backing himself, outpace Faletau and score a try. I was disappointed. Not because of any desire to see him fail, it's because I want to see something great for him.

When have I claimed that England lost because of the wingers?

The midfield did their job for most of the game but then Lancaster stupidly reshuffled it to Ford-Farrell-Barritt - a coaches' decision. All three looked uncomfortable in their combo and is that surprising that the Welsh exploited it?

A recipe for disaster.

It's because you never think certain players are at fault. Show some balance.

Hang about in the past you've put a lot of emphasis on players/positions doing their primary job. You think the backline did that on Saturday? They were mostly solid but I didn't really get excited when they trudged the ball wider as the midfield chosen were unable to make the most of anything with the ball. If we're wanting England to excel picking a midfield to stop the oppo rather than put them to the sword is surely the wrong way to go isn't it? Barritt to me isn't right, he's not showing the normal standard in defence you would expect and that to be fair is the only reason for him to be there. that aside I don't think there was much differnce in the midfield who ended the match to the one who started. In both halves mistakes from both starting midfielders occured the only difference is that Wales finished one.

The balance wasn't right in either. The pack were fine as were Youngs and Farrell, back 3 were fine, the midfield did nothing going forward and that for me limited an area coming into the warm ups where we had started to look very good.

Don't think you have said that the match was lost wholly because of the wings. I've criticised players when I think they've made bad errors and will continue to do so, I'll also continue to defend players I think deserve it.

Well the obvious gameplan which was stop Wales in their tracks which was mostly working.

The midfield of Burgess and Barritt didn't concede a try.

It was England's shocking discipline that kept allowing Wales to stay in the game. That was probably part of the gameplan which was a bit of a shambles.

Did the midfield give away loads of penalties?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I see guscott has been running his mouth for the BBC...

what a load of pish he is spouting.

England's problem in this RWC has been paying too much attention to what their opponents are doing instead of what they are doing. A couple of years ago Lancaster looked like he had a good game plan and was executing it well.

Now we get to this RWC and it seems he and his coaching staff have forgotten what got them there in the first place.

They shouldn't be changing their game plan IMO they should play to their own strengths instead of trying to nulify Australia's strengths.

A question to our English bretheren, is your massive pool of players a hindrance instead of a blessing?

Its a massive blessing huge numbers is not the issue. The issue is the selection, and tactics and substitutions of the management.

The only error I thought Barritt and Burgess made as a pair was Williams drive in the first half. Burgess cut in, caused some space and caused Farrell to stretch to cover (which he failed to make).
Other than that they did everything that was asked of them... even helped set up England's decent 1st phase try.

I just can't see England losing this. Hooper, Pocock and Falau aside, this Australia team just doesn't seem that scary (on paper at least). I expect that the crowd and adrenaline will see England through - and I don't think they'll let their concentration slip this time.

Sadly, from a Welsh perspective this is likely to leave us with a must-win game against Australia - and given our backline injuries and the fact Oz seem to have held some kind of voodoo curse over us for about a decade, I think a win for us is unlikely.

MarcusHalberstram wrote:I just can't see England losing this.  Hooper, Pocock and Falau aside, this Australia team just doesn't seem that scary (on paper at least).  I expect that the crowd and adrenaline will see England through - and I don't think they'll let their concentration slip this time.  

Sadly, from a Welsh perspective this is likely to leave us with a must-win game against Australia - and given our backline injuries and the fact Oz seem to have held some kind of voodoo curse over us for about a decade, I think a win for us is unlikely.  

I think Foley, Giteau, Kuridrani added to Folau is quite scary. Hooper and Pocock nicking quick turnover ball to feed those four is the big fear. England need to demolish the Aussies upfront, repeatedly, and then, once they have earned the right they need to spread it wide.

I reckon the Aussies will win. IF England get it right though, they could properly demolish the Aussies and win well. I just don't think it will happen.

MarcusHalberstram wrote:I just can't see England losing this.  Hooper, Pocock and Falau aside, this Australia team just doesn't seem that scary (on paper at least).  I expect that the crowd and adrenaline will see England through - and I don't think they'll let their concentration slip this time.  

Sadly, from a Welsh perspective this is likely to leave us with a must-win game against Australia - and given our backline injuries and the fact Oz seem to have held some kind of voodoo curse over us for about a decade, I think a win for us is unlikely.  

I tend to agree.

I think only Pocock, Folau, Giteau would probably be the only ones to get into the England side at the moment... Perhaps with Stephen Moore over Youngs too.
However their players are still very good and its a team sport. How do their combinations work, will their 2 opensides idea work? How will England combat Pocock and how will AUS combat England's front five?

However you could say that about a lot of teams man for man... not always that simple.

I see England winning this, their tight 5 and half back pairing (Young and Ford) are far superior, everywhere else on the pitch however Australia have a slight edge.

But as it did last saturday, the result won't be down to starting 15, it will be won or lost from 60 on, off the bench England were average, and subs brought nothing but nerves to the party, you look at Australias bench and consider each player his starters equal, then look to the England bench and see a drop in quality throughout...

George Ford has to come on at 10 for a positive impact, because I don't see any other players who can.

I see Australia scoring 2/3 disjointed tries, they havn't played together for a while and will start slow, Englands pressure should keep the scoreboard ticking over, however England need to be 8 points cler going into the final 15 to win this game IMHO, if they are less than that or behind panic will start and Aus will win.

Fanster wrote:I see Australia scoring 2/3 disjointed tries, they havn't played together for a while and will start slow

This exact XV played against Fiji.

People are trying to bill this as the most important pool game ever - which may well be true for England - but the stakes aren't anything like as high for Australia. They've still got a game left - against a Wales team they have no big fear of. Unless things swing Australia's way early on, and they smell blood, I honestly think the Ozzies may just be content to try and stay within 7 points of England come away with a losing BP then aim to beat Wales.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Fanster wrote:I see Australia scoring 2/3 disjointed tries, they havn't played together for a while and will start slow

This exact XV played against Fiji.

and 14 played since then.

You don't make 14 changes without disruption, it will feel like a start to Australias campaign, they were disjointed against Fiji, that doesnt become seemless in 80 minutes, especially with a 14 man switch a few days later.

Egland have now played 2 tough matches with their first team on the park, compounded with being at home and the backlash of the loss I would be amazed if England didn't come out of the traps the better early on!

MarcusHalberstram wrote:People are trying to bill this as the most important pool game ever - which may well be true for England - but the stakes aren't anything like as high for Australia.  They've still got a game left - against a Wales team they have no big fear of.  Unless things swing Australia's way early on, and they smell blood, I honestly think the Ozzies may just be content to try and stay within 7 points of England come away with a losing BP then aim to beat Wales.  

hahahaha because no Australian team would ever try to win like, you know the pro's thy are! they'd never relish the chance to knock England out of the RWC on their own soil, get real, Aus are there to qualify on that Saturday night, a win ensures they qualify, that is the only thing they want out of Saturday night!

MarcusHalberstram wrote:People are trying to bill this as the most important pool game ever - which may well be true for England - but the stakes aren't anything like as high for Australia.  They've still got a game left - against a Wales team they have no big fear of.  Unless things swing Australia's way early on, and they smell blood, I honestly think the Ozzies may just be content to try and stay within 7 points of England come away with a losing BP then aim to beat Wales.  

I don't think any Aussie will ever be content to lose to England.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Fanster wrote:I see Australia scoring 2/3 disjointed tries, they havn't played together for a while and will start slow

This exact XV played against Fiji.

That's the problem with this World Cup. Too much time between games.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Fanster wrote:I see Australia scoring 2/3 disjointed tries, they havn't played together for a while and will start slow

This exact XV played against Fiji.

That's the problem with this World Cup. Too much time between games.

If you watched the Wales v Fiji game last night. the Welsh team was truly on their knees in the second half.

With not enough rest between games.

majesticimperialman wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Fanster wrote:I see Australia scoring 2/3 disjointed tries, they havn't played together for a while and will start slow

This exact XV played against Fiji.

That's the problem with this World Cup. Too much time between games.

If you watched the Wales v Fiji game last night. the Welsh team was truly on their knees in the second half.

With not enough rest between games.

I think you missed the joke...

Fanster wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Fanster wrote:I see Australia scoring 2/3 disjointed tries, they havn't played together for a while and will start slow

This exact XV played against Fiji.

and 14 played since then.

You don't make 14 changes without disruption

But in effect they've made no changes.

majesticimperialman wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Fanster wrote:I see Australia scoring 2/3 disjointed tries, they havn't played together for a while and will start slow

This exact XV played against Fiji.

That's the problem with this World Cup. Too much time between games.

If you watched the Wales v Fiji game last night. the Welsh team was truly on their knees in the second half.

With not enough rest between games.

I was being sarcastic.

I have enough Welsh friends to have been made painfully aware of how badly the Welsh and Wales have been treated by the draw and the fixture timetable. I've also been told by several WUMs that Scotland only beat Japan because poor little Japan had to face us a short time after the Boks.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Fanster wrote:I see Australia scoring 2/3 disjointed tries, they havn't played together for a while and will start slow

This exact XV played against Fiji.

and 14 played since then.

You don't make 14 changes without disruption

But in effect they've made no changes.

Well technically you could say they've made 28!

Maybe the world cup should follow a "winner stays on" approach. Start early in the morning. Randomly chosen team starts first. If you win a half (40 mins) you stay on. Keep playing until midnight. Whoever wins the final half of rugby is crowned the winner. World cup takes a day. Simple.

screamingaddabs wrote:Maybe the world cup should follow a "winner stays on" approach.  Start early in the morning.  Randomly chosen team starts first.  If you win a half (40 mins) you stay on.  Keep playing until midnight.  Whoever wins the final half of rugby is crowned the winner.  World cup takes a day.  Simple.

I know your taking the mick, but that does sound like an absoulte awesome way to spend 14 hours in the pub in front of the screen!!!

screamingaddabs wrote:Maybe the world cup should follow a "winner stays on" approach.  Start early in the morning.  Randomly chosen team starts first.  If you win a half (40 mins) you stay on.  Keep playing until midnight.  Whoever wins the final half of rugby is crowned the winner.  World cup takes a day.  Simple.

Harsh on the team that starts first, particularly if they are any good. England would be ok though, as they are the fittest team.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:Maybe the world cup should follow a "winner stays on" approach.  Start early in the morning.  Randomly chosen team starts first.  If you win a half (40 mins) you stay on.  Keep playing until midnight.  Whoever wins the final half of rugby is crowned the winner.  World cup takes a day.  Simple.

Harsh on the team that starts first, particularly if they are any good. England would be ok though, as they are the fittest team.

Well I like how the seedings were done for this world cup, so in a similar way all we need to do is base who starts on the rankings from 1902 and go from there. Then people can hardly complain about the schedule nor who plays first etc.

I should also note that the referee doesn't change either so it could get a bit lawless late on.