How much of an impact did the cancelled games have on the knockout stages?

by Guest Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:14 pm

Pretty simple stuff.

Some dominant performances from England and New Zealand preceded a surprise showing from a spirited France where their physical edge over Wales nearly got them a win. All 3 teams built big leads in the opening quarter, often through extra sharpness and physicality. All 3 teams didn't play their final group game.

With SA and Japan having a much less first-half-centric match, with SA eventually pulling away through their extra bulk and stamina, it at least begs the question.

(don't take this TOO seriously...)

by **RiscaGame** Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:00 am

Hard to say, from a Welsh point of view. When Wales had their biggest rest, they started poorly against Fiji. Perhaps it could be attributed in part to our poor start today, that we lost some rhythm by rotating for the Uruguay game, so a lot of players lost that match sharpness a bit. We’ve certainly had our best start against Australia (not counting Georgia, which was pretty straightforward), from a similar turnaround to what we get for next week.

by Taylorman Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:16 am

Well the two best performed teams both missed the last pool match. And France apparently performed better than most thought so it appears to have benefited those sides.

For NZ I dont think it mattered. What we missed in match prep we may have gained in injuries or cards. I think England could have done with the French match more than NZ given their lighter pool matches but that didnt seem to matter. Oz were a good prep for the NZ match.

by **LondonTiger** Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:57 am

Looks like a Fox News Poll, where every option is offering some support to the central argument.

by Gooseberry Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:13 am

Petty sure Australia started better start against England.

by No 7&1/2 Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:22 am

France wales went pretty similar to the 6 nations. England Australia went similar to the majority of the games in the last 4 years. Haven't watched nz Ireland yet. Italy didn't take advantage at all.

by SecretFly Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:36 am

Well whatever the specific implications for the teams in this WC - one thing should be clear from it. WR, who throw the swipes at the rest of us from time to time as they try to drag us this way and that into their projected pathway of More Money World Club International - those boys will have to be told in no uncertain terms that such an occurance cannot be allowed happen again in a competition that's meant to be structured on some basic degrees of fairness, one of the most fundamental being all sides have to play the same amount of pool games.
Nobody can predict a severe weather event so far out from such an event but Genuine contingency plans must be in place either to extend the competition by a week or force teams to accept newly revised dates within the current schedule.
Change the contracts to truly reflect potential cancellation days.

by Taylorman Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:20 am

Oh it will be a major part of the review and the next one. Where’s 2023 anyway? France?

by TightHEAD Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:50 am

Its like Pointless, even Richard Osman would be proud of it.

by **Rugby Fan** Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:02 am

"I felt like it benefited us," said [Jamie] George, when asked about the cancellation of the France game. "We went to Miyazaki, it's a great training facility there, I thought it was probably what the team needed. The way we felt on the field was sharp but it was nice to be challenged. We had to really dig in at times, defensively. And the way the game was played it was very fast and physically we are in a pretty good place."

George revealed that England's training session on Wednesday had been more strenuous at times that the match itself.

"If you look at the GPS and all the sport science stuff we are in pretty good nick. The way we train is coming to the forefront in how we play," George added. "To be honest the way we train is often more difficult than games so we had a good blowout on that Saturday. We were able to put a few things in place that we were able to fall back on next week. That gave us time to potentially go back to those things and whoever we play in the semi-final might see that."

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12278371

by Guest Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:37 pm

Gooseberry wrote:Petty sure Australia started better start against England.

14-3 after 20 minutes. To England.

by Guest Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:41 pm

I'm slightly surprised at the voting tbh, but not when I consider people/fans don't want their team's win 'devalued' in any way.

I think it will have made a difference, and will continue to. People talking about 11 day rests are missing the point. You're still playing an extra game. You're still taking the hits, running the metres, wearing out the body, the muscles,the reserves, picking up more knocks, wearing down long term stamina, and you're having to do it against your toughest group opponents, which didn't happen for England and France.

I'd say NZ's emphatic physicality v Ireland was no doubt helped by the rest. In fact, it's pretty simple - if the players are telling you, it doesn't even need questioning. The difference between a rest period and a non-rest period is massive. How much it changed the results is hard to say, but it changed the games, for me. No doubt.

by **LondonTiger** Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:46 pm

miaow wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:Petty sure Australia started better start against England.

14-3 after 20 minutes. To England.

After 18 minutes 3-0 to Australia with 90% possession and territory. In a game you said England would have to come out fast in and hold on. angel

Selective use of stats can prove anything.

by **LondonTiger** Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:52 pm

miaow wrote:I'm slightly surprised at the voting tbh, but not when I consider people/fans don't want their team's win 'devalued' in any way.

France may well have benefited from not having to play a tough game one week before - but chances are they were going to select a second string side v England anyway. England frankly needed the game more than they needed the the extra training session.

by Scottrf Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:54 pm

miaow wrote:I'm slightly surprised at the voting tbh, but not when I consider people/fans don't want their team's win 'devalued' in any way.

Every game went as expected except France - Wales for me, and that was because Wales were so poor. England and New Zealand were both massive favourites either way.

by Guest Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:00 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
miaow wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:Petty sure Australia started better start against England.

14-3 after 20 minutes. To England.

After 18 minutes 3-0 to Australia with 90% possession and territory. In a game you said England would have to come out fast in and hold on. Selective use of stats can prove anything.

Precisely my point though, that doesn't defeat it. The 'start' of the game isn't just the very start. In the end England didn't get their first 2-3 minute try because they didn't get field positon, but one of their first good positions, they used their set move with hands down the right, moved it back left, and it was a run in in the corner for May. Fairly typical to what we've seen from England.

Fast starts were all consistent for the 3 rested teams so it was one point to pick up, but it's obviously not the only benefit to not having played. It's also fitness during the whole game, stamina towards the end, skills under pressure, preparation time in the week etc.

There's an interesting discussion to be had here, or there's "use of stats to prove anything". Not sure I'm the one doing the latter... Hug

by Guest Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:01 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
miaow wrote:I'm slightly surprised at the voting tbh, but not when I consider people/fans don't want their team's win 'devalued' in any way.

France may well have benefited from not having to play a tough game one week before - but chances are they were going to select a second string side v England anyway. England frankly needed the game more than they needed the the extra training session.

I think this is the key point tbh:

miaow wrote:Fast starts were all consistent for the 3 rested teams so it was one point to pick up, but it's obviously not the only benefit to not having played. It's also fitness during the whole game, stamina towards the end, skills under pressure, preparation time in the week etc.

It's hard to say France not playing didn't help them prepare for Wales. Likwise England v Australia, and NZ seemed to have completely worked Ireland out.

by Scottrf Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:03 pm

England have beaten Australia consistently for years. No different for this game.

France didn't play all that well in my opinion, just Wales let them play.

by BamBam Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:05 pm

miaow wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
miaow wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:Petty sure Australia started better start against England.

14-3 after 20 minutes. To England.

After 18 minutes 3-0 to Australia with 90% possession and territory. In a game you said England would have to come out fast in and hold on. Selective use of stats can prove anything.

Precisely my point though, that doesn't defeat it. The 'start' of the game isn't just the very start.

So 18 mins isn't the "start" but 20 mins is the "start"

Erm

by Guest Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:09 pm

First quarter feels like the start of the game. All ambiguous really, though. And not the only point. Easy to get hung up on to derail though, sure.

by Scottrf Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:11 pm

miaow wrote:First quarter feels like the start of the game. All ambiguous really, though. And not the only point. Easy to get hung up on to derail though, sure.

Everyone who watched the game thought the Australians started faster. Literally. There's no point to derail, it's nonsense to say England started faster because of the missed game.

by Guest Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:13 pm

Ok, stop talking about England and fast starts then.

Did the cancelled game help England?

by Steffan Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:14 pm

I guess the whole world (other than England and South Africa) are hoping for a Wales v NZ final

Here's hoping it happens although I am not confident for Saturday

by BamBam Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:16 pm

Oh hi Steffan, welcome back!

Was worried we'd lost you, you went remarkably quiet after about 44 mins on Saturday.

by Scottrf Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:18 pm

miaow wrote:Ok, stop talking about England and fast starts then.

Did the cancelled game help England?

Yeah, will be a tainted World Cup win if it happens.

Perhaps it helped, but not enough to turn the game.

by TightHEAD Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:18 pm

Steffan wrote:I guess the whole world (other than England and Australia) are hoping for a Wales v NZ final

Here's hoping it happens although I am not confident for Saturday

I wonder what the odds would be based on the last............how many results?

Generally interested, any bookies on here?

by Scottrf Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:19 pm

Steffan wrote:I guess the whole world (other than England and Australia) are hoping for a Wales v NZ final

Here's hoping it happens although I am not confident for Saturday

Why don't South Africa want to win?

by Steffan Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:19 pm

BamBam wrote:Oh hi Steffan, welcome back!

Was worried we'd lost you, you went remarkably quiet after about 44 mins on Saturday.

Yeah I did. Probably because me and the mrs went into Cardiff to drink some wine and watch some live music being as it was a nice day. She only forced me into about 2 clothes shops as well to be fair to her

I would have much rather been in the house talking to you on here though...

by Steffan Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:20 pm

Scottrf wrote:
Steffan wrote:I guess the whole world (other than England and Australia) are hoping for a Wales v NZ final

Here's hoping it happens although I am not confident for Saturday

Why don't South Africa want to win?

I typed Australia instead of South Africa. My bad laughing

by Scottrf Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:20 pm

Steffan wrote:
BamBam wrote:Oh hi Steffan, welcome back!

Was worried we'd lost you, you went remarkably quiet after about 44 mins on Saturday.
Yeah I did. Probably because me and the mrs went into Cardiff to drink some wine and watch some live music being as it was a nice day. She only forced me into about 2 clothes shops as well to be fair to her

I would have much rather been in the house talking to you on here though...

I'd rather be on here than in Cardiff to be fair.

by SecretFly Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:21 pm

I'm hearing many projected benefits of missing a game ..and a few shortfalls.

But I'm going to be blunt. I've alluded to it before, closer to when the cancellations were announced - one main risk you take in playing a hard game over not playing one is injury. Injury to an important player...or two. Injury that might mean they miss the following game or carry a niggle they didn't have into the next game.

Nobody likes to see serious injuries with any player but everyone knows they sometimes breathe a sigh of some relief if a special player becomes unavailable for a game against their team. Nobody will readily admit it perhaps but it's true. It's human nature. You want as many perceived advantages as you can for your team.

That 'special' kind of risk must be shared. Every side must play four games to share that special kind of risk.

by **LondonTiger** Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:21 pm

Steffan wrote:I guess the whole world (other than England and Australia) are hoping for a Wales v NZ final

Here's hoping it happens although I am not confident for Saturday

Why would South Africans want Wales in the final?

Me I either want England v South Africa or Wales v New Zealand. That way if a NH side wins they will have beaten all 3 SANZAR sides in a single World Cup.

by Guest Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:21 pm

Scottrf wrote:Perhaps it helped, but not enough to turn the game.

What does turn the game mean?

by **LondonTiger** Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:22 pm

SecretFly wrote:I'm hearing many projected benefits of missing a game ..and a few shortfalls.

But I'm going to be blunt. I've alluded to it before, closer to when the cancellations were announced - one main risk you take in playing a hard game over not playing one is injury. Injury to an important player...or two. Injury that might mean they miss the following game or carry a niggle they didn't have into the next game.

Nobody likes to see serious injuries with any player but everyone knows they sometimes breathe a sigh of some relief if a special player becomes unavailable for a game against their team. Nobody will readily admit it perhaps but it's true. It's human nature. You want as many perceived advantages as you can for your team.

That 'special' kind of risk must be shared. Every side must play four games to share that special kind of risk.

Except Eddie has broken far more players in training than have been injured in games.

by Scottrf Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:22 pm

miaow wrote:
Scottrf wrote:Perhaps it helped, but not enough to turn the game.

What does turn the game mean?

Change the result.

by **LondonTiger** Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:23 pm

Steffan wrote:
BamBam wrote:Oh hi Steffan, welcome back!

Was worried we'd lost you, you went remarkably quiet after about 44 mins on Saturday.
Yeah I did. Probably because me and the mrs went into Cardiff to drink some wine and watch some live music being as it was a nice day. She only forced me into about 2 clothes shops as well to be fair to her

I would have much rather been in the house talking to you on here though...

you start drinking at 9:30 in the morning?

by Guest Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:24 pm

Seems that's where we'll just never know Scott. Think Australia would rather have rested up than play a spirited Georgia side who gave them a good game for 70 minutes.

by Scottrf Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:25 pm

miaow wrote:Seems that's where we'll just never know Scott. Think Australia would rather have rested up than play a spirited Georgia side who gave them a good game for 70 minutes.

Lets be honest, if Georgia are giving you a good game for 70 minutes, you're not good enough.

by Steffan Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:25 pm

LondonTiger wrote:Why would South Africans want Wales in the final?

Me I either want England v South Africa or Wales v New Zealand. That way if a NH side wins they will have beaten all 3 SANZAR sides in a single World Cup.

I typed Australia instead of South Africa by mistake. It's corrected now

If we get past South Africa then I would rather play England in the final. We just cannot beat the Kiwis. England being in the final gives them a chance of winning it though. And no one wants the horror of 2003 repeated

by Scottrf Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:25 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
Steffan wrote:
BamBam wrote:Oh hi Steffan, welcome back!

Was worried we'd lost you, you went remarkably quiet after about 44 mins on Saturday.
Yeah I did. Probably because me and the mrs went into Cardiff to drink some wine and watch some live music being as it was a nice day. She only forced me into about 2 clothes shops as well to be fair to her

I would have much rather been in the house talking to you on here though...

you start drinking at 9:30 in the morning?

Have you ever read his posts?

by Soul Requiem Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:25 pm

Australia have consistently started fast against England but end up with little to show for it to then get blown away in the second half, been that way for the past seven matches now.

by Steffan Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:27 pm

LondonTiger wrote:you start drinking at 9:30 in the morning?

No but had to get ready to meet her. And actually yesterday I started drinking at 8 in the morning. The pub was quite full. Love it Smile

by Guest Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:27 pm

Scottrf wrote:
miaow wrote:Seems that's where we'll just never know Scott. Think Australia would rather have rested up than play a spirited Georgia side who gave them a good game for 70 minutes.

Lets be honest, if Georgia are giving you a good game for 70 minutes, you're not good enough.

Good enough for what? This seems pretty stupid. England had the luxury of not rotating - the All Blacks rotated and struggled with Namibia. Silly point and not more than a little bit ignorant.

by SecretFly Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:27 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
SecretFly wrote:I'm hearing many projected benefits of missing a game ..and a few shortfalls.

But I'm going to be blunt. I've alluded to it before, closer to when the cancellations were announced - one main risk you take in playing a hard game over not playing one is injury. Injury to an important player...or two. Injury that might mean they miss the following game or carry a niggle they didn't have into the next game.

Nobody likes to see serious injuries with any player but everyone knows they sometimes breathe a sigh of some relief if a special player becomes unavailable for a game against their team. Nobody will readily admit it perhaps but it's true. It's human nature. You want as many perceived advantages as you can for your team.

That 'special' kind of risk must be shared. Every side must play four games to share that special kind of risk.

Except Eddie has broken far more players in training than have been injured in games.

I know that line and expected it here, Tiger. Yes, you can get injured in training. All teams train so it's a shared risk.
Fact remains - all four games must be played to share the risk of in-game injury.

by BamBam Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:29 pm

Steffan wrote:
BamBam wrote:Oh hi Steffan, welcome back!

Was worried we'd lost you, you went remarkably quiet after about 44 mins on Saturday.
Yeah I did. Probably because me and the mrs went into Cardiff to drink some wine and watch some live music being as it was a nice day. She only forced me into about 2 clothes shops as well to be fair to her

I would have much rather been in the house talking to you on here though...

Ah I'm glad she waited until England took the lead before dragging you out, wouldn't have wanted you to miss that moment

by Steffan Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:30 pm

miaow wrote:Silly point and not more than a little bit ignorant.

You get used to Scottrf after a while

by Scottrf Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:31 pm

miaow wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
miaow wrote:Seems that's where we'll just never know Scott. Think Australia would rather have rested up than play a spirited Georgia side who gave them a good game for 70 minutes.

Lets be honest, if Georgia are giving you a good game for 70 minutes, you're not good enough.

Good enough for what? This seems pretty stupid. England had the luxury of not rotating - the All Blacks rotated and struggled with Namibia. Silly point and not more than a little bit ignorant.

To beat England, rested or not rested. But you're saying the All Blacks struggled with Namibia so I think your posts may have jumped the shark.

by **LondonTiger** Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:33 pm

miaow wrote:Seems that's where we'll just never know Scott. Think Australia would rather have rested up than play a spirited Georgia side who gave them a good game for 70 minutes.

Maybe they would, but they would still, most probably and based on relevant evidence, have been well beaten.

So did missing a game make a difference - yes. Do we know who benefited - no.

Now the whole reason of forums is to debate, and usually about what ifs. It would have been fairer that everyone played the same number of games. It would have been fairer if Hodge had been sent off. It would have been fairer if teams did not have four day turn arounds. There are all sorts of things that could have been fairer. It is not fair that Salma Hayek is married to a French billionaire and not me. We can sit back and moan about life's unfairness or get on and play with the cards we have been dealt.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Gats is not saying to the team "Do not worry, they had more rest". Instead he will be telling Wales that they got lucky and they need to improve. Hansen, Jones and Erasmus will be trying to do similar with their teams.

by Steffan Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:33 pm

BamBam wrote:Ah I'm glad she waited until England took the lead before dragging you out, wouldn't have wanted you to miss that moment

To be honest it wouldn't have mattered what point in the game I stopped watching. I knew all along England would win that game. I'm quite glad there are two Northern Hemisphere teams in the semis. England will get all the UK hype and hopefully we can just sneak into the final quietly

by **Afro** Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:33 pm

Steffan wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Why would South Africans want Wales in the final?

Me I either want England v South Africa or Wales v New Zealand. That way if a NH side wins they will have beaten all 3 SANZAR sides in a single World Cup.
I typed Australia instead of South Africa by mistake. It's corrected now

If we get past South Africa then I would rather play England in the final. We just cannot beat the Kiwis. England being in the final gives them a chance of winning it though. And no one wants the horror of 2003 repeated

There's only one thing more guaranteed than England going on about it if they won the World Cup, and that's the Welsh going on about it if they won the World Cup Hug

by Sponsored content

How much...