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

First topic message reminder :

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...)

Scottrf wrote:

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.

I'm not here for your entertainment. Your reference makes no sense.

miaow wrote:I'm not here for your entertainment. Your reference makes no sense.

Lets put it another way. If you think 71-9 is struggling, you need to go back to the basics, and not worry about if a team had more rest.

Scottrf wrote:

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.

For 30 minutes they did.

However to say England did not need to rotate is hugely ignorant. Look at the changes (11?) for the USA after a 4 day turn around. So far England have coped with everything thrown at them with cool efficiency. Past teams would have struggled through the pool stages, struggled mentally with the big gap. I cannot see them winning against NZ, but the constant attempts by some to belittle what the side has done so far is, imo, pathetic.

Scottrf wrote:

miaow wrote:I'm not here for your entertainment. Your reference makes no sense.

Lets put it another way. If you think 71-9 is struggling, you need to go back to the basics, and not worry about if a team had more rest.

As I said for 30 minutes or so NZ most certainly did struggle. But in the end superior fitness and skills held sway.

LondonTiger 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.

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.

Sorry LT, you're making the classic error of leaping to conclusions. Should have, maybe, probably etc. - sport doesn't work on those. One set of teams had an advantage another team didn't - doesn't mean it didn't bring its own drawbacks, but when you can plot parts of the game to extra freshness, preparation, stamina etc. then it's an interesting discussion to have.

Reducing it to 'ah, yeah, but...no' is literally just fandom trying to avoid the realisation that the two teams were on different playing levels due to the format of the tournament. I get it, you/no one wants to say any win is devalued, but the truth is it's a horrible situation to be in - largely not being spoken about - and I think, as players/ex players, and even people involved in the game (is there anyone left who is on here?) it's a fairly sensible point to make about fitness and prep.

Your last point seems way off the mark to me - it's either reduce it down to 'ah, don't ask the question, because the favourites won' or 'well we'll simply never know'. All or nothing answer, really - conveniently aligning with your own team's success and priorities?

Sadly the way of the world, but nvm.

You're accusing LT of giving answers that conveniently align with England's success and priorities, but I'm not so sure that this thread would still have been created by yourself if Wales had been one of the teams with a cancelled game

Considering the game followed the exact same pattern as it invariably does against Australia I think we can safely say that the cancelled game had very little impact, if anything Slade and Mako lost out not having the France game to get up to speed.

How many of the Aussies who started v England, also started v Georgia?

Same for Wales XV v France compared to against Uruguay.

I'd guess 5 or 6 at most?

I think the whole impact is being exaggerated. There would have been some impact, but not enough to change the result and at the end of it, completely unquantifiable.

I think anyone who says otherwise is just trying to belittle what other teams are doing

BamBam wrote:You're accusing LT of giving answers that conveniently align with England's success and priorities, but I'm not so sure that this thread would still have been created by yourself if Wales had been one of the teams with a cancelled game

Is you saying we is all naturally biased folks so we better have rules in place that we all have to obey that makes sure all teams have to play four games?

I agree.

BamBam wrote:You're accusing LT of giving answers that conveniently align with England's success and priorities, but I'm not so sure that this thread would still have been created by yourself if Wales had been one of the teams with a cancelled game

Was my thought tbh.

Or that it was created to make excuses for what was a frankly disappointing performance by Wales.

SecretFly wrote:

BamBam wrote:You're accusing LT of giving answers that conveniently align with England's success and priorities, but I'm not so sure that this thread would still have been created by yourself if Wales had been one of the teams with a cancelled game

Is you saying we is all naturally biased folks so we better have rules in place that we all have to obey that makes sure all teams have to play four games?

I agree.

So do I! Lesson to be learned for next time

I don't think they had a huge impact. The favourites won every game and not by a huge amount. France perhaps showed up better than expected but most of the Wales team did not feature against Uruguay anyway. Likewise, given Ireland's showing in the World Cup, I don't think the result is an aberration.

In the long term what impact does it have? There's unlikely to be a weather event similar in France in 2023, or any of the 2027 bidders (Australia, Argentina, Russia and perhaps the USA). In effect World Rugby has twelve years to consider how to cater for countries that are likely to have adverse weather. The real shambles was not games being called off but the failure to appreciate that this was a concern. Make what you will of the Qatar world cup in football but the decision to change the timing seems sensible now.

I think three issues have emerged from this world cup. Location and timing of the tournament, scheduling of matches and squad sizes. The fact that Scotland had four days turnaround before the Japan game was grossly unfair. Before anyone accuses me of sour grapes I don't think we'd have beaten them anyway. We haven't produced near to the level Japan did at the World Cup, Twickenham second half aside, for well over a year. The same applies in the reverse to the 2015 World Cup, Japan had just beaten South Africa and were unable to capitalise it as a result of the turnaround and Scotland blew them off the park. Making the tournament a week-ten days longer could make all the difference in that regard. The other issue is squad size. The size of the squad seems to be based off of the fairly arbitrary decision of effectively having two starting XVs. We all know rugby is a squad game and a team that does not empty their bench is a relative rarity. Every time the Tier One teams debate which quality players to leave out of the World Cup and we see Tier 2 players absolutely humped by the end of the tournament. Why not increase the squad to 37? As a very simple alteration we would see an end to countries experimenting with players in random positions in the run up.

I agree on squad size increases, but mainly on safety concerns to make sure that there are 3 full front rows in every squad

I don't think increasing to 37 is the right idea though, the top Tier 1 sides would have even more of an advantage against the Tier 2 sides imo, with players in the squad who would only be expected to line up against Tier 2 opposition

Yeah had the england aus game or the wales france game been vastly different to those which have gone previously there may have been slightly more angst. As it was I understand that england were going to throw the match against France to get the easier side of the draw so didn't suit us at all. Italy benefitted the most i think.
Was it george who came out and said england benefitted? Cant find the quotes now. Think he also said that jones' training on the Wednesday was higher intensity than australia. Think that says the will adapt training to suit what they need to do ie would have had an easier week had some players got better game time.

BamBam wrote:You're accusing LT of giving answers that conveniently align with England's success and priorities, but I'm not so sure that this thread would still have been created by yourself if Wales had been one of the teams with a cancelled game

The key difference, of cousrse, being that I'm working on a basis of things that have happened, and you're working in the world of things that haven't in the land of make believe.

Afro wrote:

BamBam wrote:You're accusing LT of giving answers that conveniently align with England's success and priorities, but I'm not so sure that this thread would still have been created by yourself if Wales had been one of the teams with a cancelled game

Was my thought tbh.

Or that it was created to make excuses for what was a frankly disappointing performance by Wales.

No. Please stop passing judgement about the motivation behind a post, particularly when it's both critical of the poster, and wrong.

Things that have happened - cancelled games

Land of make believe - impact of those cancelled games on future games

BamBam wrote:I agree on squad size increases, but mainly on safety concerns to make sure that there are 3 full front rows in every squad

I don't think increasing to 37 is the right idea though, the top Tier 1 sides would have even more of an advantage against the Tier 2 sides imo, with players in the squad who would only be expected to line up against Tier 2 opposition

Is that not the case anyway? Adam Hastings travelled principally for the Russia game and in case of injury. I think the way to go would be to have in effect a full 15, near enough a bench, and a second XV. So teams could take nine front rowers, five second rows, seven back rows, three scrum halves, three fly-halves, five centres and six back three players with utility players in amongst it. The Tier 2 teams are the ones that regularly have short turnarounds. The World Cup is an opportunity for semi-professional and amateur players to put themselves in the shop window. Why not afford more players that opportunity?

123456789. wrote:I don't think they had a huge impact. The favourites won every game and not by a huge amount. France perhaps showed up better than expected but most of the Wales team did not feature against Uruguay anyway. Likewise, given Ireland's showing in the World Cup, I don't think the result is an aberration.

Parkes played 80 minutes v France after 2 games in 3 days last week. Wyn Jones, a prop, was playing his 3rd game in 11 days. Focusing solely on Wales, the cumulative effects of that are immense, and this is the point people are perhaps willfully missing.

You don't 'reset' and go back to your baseline or ideal form after a few days' rest - you're still shattered, you still carry knocks. That dipping in to reserves takes a long time to actually recover from - talk to a marathon runner or anyone else doing long distance running, or someone who does back to back marathons or iron mans. Now see what happens when theyre forced to compete against somehow who skipped the last one last week. Similar sort of principle.

I suppose this is a case of whether people really thinking training can imitate or be 'more' of a contest than a test match can. In my opinion, you cannot fabricate the mental and emotional side of the game, and that in turn impacts physicality.

Results went as expected, but the 'ease' with which England and NZ won has to factor in the rest week - and that in turn impacts the SF and final, of course. This is the tragedy of the RWC and cancelling games. It's not just about the teams that are left, either. Italy are now barely mentioned as all eyes are on who wins the knockouts. Rough situation really for just about all teams involved.

BamBam wrote:Things that have happened - cancelled games

Land of make believe - impact of those cancelled games on future games

Don't make me post another Dougal gif, Bam...

It's hard, very hard for me today - especially because, as I have planned for several months, it was my last match with the national team," the Clermont Auvergne player said.

"I hadn't made a public announcement of my retirement but the people impacted by the decision have known since the summer: (France coach) Jacques Brunel, (Clermont coach) Franck Azema and several of the players.

"I wanted to have the best possible match and tournament to finish on... perhaps I wanted it too much. My desire and my aggression got the better of me."
Sebastien Vahaamahina: France lock retires from Test rugby the day after red card - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50131035

Probably the biggest impact on Saturdays match. Bit of an understatement by him to say his aggression got the better of him. Looked at the ref to make sure he was looking then assaulted someone. Cant help but feel this was the French union suggesting he say he was retiring. But I'm a cynic.

2019 England win by 24
2018 England win by 19
2017 England win by 24

The reality is nobody will ever know if the week off was an advantage, a hindrance or a bit of both and to what level.

miaow wrote:

Afro wrote:

BamBam wrote:You're accusing LT of giving answers that conveniently align with England's success and priorities, but I'm not so sure that this thread would still have been created by yourself if Wales had been one of the teams with a cancelled game

Was my thought tbh.

Or that it was created to make excuses for what was a frankly disappointing performance by Wales.

No. Please stop passing judgement about the motivation behind a post, particularly when it's both critical of the poster, and wrong.

Sorry Miaow, but that is highly hypocritical.

I can quote posts today alone where you have called another poster “ignorant”, and asking another not to post because you don’t want to hear about NZ.

I’m sure I am not the only one who feels there is an element of arrogance in your posts and a disrespect, almost coming across as you feeling your rugby knowledge is superior.

The Kiwi is a WUM who doesn't contribute to discussions, just talks about NZ and how great they are in every single thread. Much like the cumulative effect of playing consecutive games, the cumulative effect of WUMming adds up, too! Not sure who I called ignorant.

But this isn't hypocritical at all. You're free to think what you want - you've said it - but as you needed to say it twice, and I'm telling you, quite literally, that my intentions are for an honest discussion, to not do it again. That's all. It's particularly disappointing coming from a moderator.

Thank you for telling me.

I am asking you, as a moderator, to please reflect on your tone, as your stated intentions are not reflected in how your posts are perceived.

Sorry Miaow you’re full of it. You keep getting things wrong which is why many keep having to correct you. You say I don’t contribute yet I said the ABs will more like go up another level vs the Irish and said don’t underestimate France, which you consistently did.

Now you’ve said ‘NZ struggled against France’ in a 71-9, where LT clearly pointed out that that was for 30 minutes, then they went out and slayed them.

Compare that to... ‘France was easily the closest of the upsets with Wales behind until the red and very lucky to win’.

Your response? ‘They won didn’t they?

You’re so selective you have to bend the truth so far from reality it’s no longer credible.

I don’t bend the truth, I say it like it is and last time I looked the ABs are pointing higher than anyone else. Despite England playing well it is the ABs that are being described as ‘going up another level’.

And England did not start well vs Oz as LT said but you brush over that to suit your little agenda, with a selective stat. England DID need the France match as both LT and I alluded to but you worm your way out of that, all in effort to paint a picture that... ‘Wales suffered, unlike the other three, due to not getting a rest”.

What a complete waste of time that is. You design an entire article to push a fantasy when the truth is Wales were poor, and were gifted the win, when the power ratings said Wales had by far the easiest game, and made a meal of it.

An entire article to build an excuse.

Next you go up against a, date I say it, SH side in SA, a side that knows, unlike Wales, how to win these things.

I guess you’re going to give me the ‘history means nothing speech’ again huh?

As you did Ireland. Wakes have won the last four.

Well whoop de doo. Ireland had won the last two out of three. They also had been whitewashed every single quarter final.

But noooo, can’t have history determining these things.

Your analysis is shoddy, based on flimsy and very selective reasoning which doesn’t stand up when tested.

I know mine is one eyed, but at least it’s more credible, at least it’s being supported by what’s playing out in front of us.

For the amount of posts you do here your analysis, reasoning and articulation of the facts needs to be stronger for a rugby forum of this quality.

Not a problem, my initial reflections are that I never respond in any way that isn't already used by another poster - like this thread, for instance, was intended to be a good discussion point but has delved in to a my nation v your nation debate, again, as usual. And even then, I'm still not trying to derail any thread, or WUM - I'm not on here for anything other than rugby chat, but too many people don't share that view, unfortunately.

I suppose, in turn, another reflection is that it is very difficult to give specific posters the benefit of the doubt based on prior experience and posting history - there are few who don't resort to just about the worst you can get away with on this forum without being banned, and as 'ganging up' is, sadly, a fairly common thing, it seems prudent to effectively pre-empty the desire to abuse, to shut it down by picking apart the lazy logic at the heart of any attempt to derail or WUM. It seems much better doing this than devolving in to pure pettiness alone.

But I'll reflect some more and see what I come up with.

Thanks again.

Agree with Miaow actually. As much as I think he’s off the mark here, he’s not a WUM. People do gang up on him but I think his contributions are valuable.

So do I, just sometimes the points get a little strayed, and who gave your comment a red thingy?

Anyway, we move on. Two extremely mouth watering matches coming up where four of the five likely to take this out are still in. Kudos to all sides.

Scottrf wrote:Agree with Miaow actually. As much as I think he’s off the mark here, he’s not a WUM. People do gang up on him but I think his contributions are valuable.

Thanks, appreciate that Scott.

Scottrf wrote:Agree with Miaow actually. As much as I think he’s off the mark here, he’s not a WUM. People do gang up on him but I think his contributions are valuable.

I agree 100% and don’t question Miaow’s motives. I don’t believe there is any wumming from him at all.

The request is to reflect on his tone as the perception appears to be that he is not always respectful of others posts in the way he responds to them.

And as Miaow alluded to himself, if others have a preconception that he does this, it is hard to shake that reputation.

Scottrf wrote:Agree with Miaow actually. As much as I think he’s off the mark here, he’s not a WUM. People do gang up on him but I think his contributions are valuable.

Surely not... You're talking about someone who has a history for displaying extraordinary behaviour when someone disagrees with their post, and then took a hiatus from the forum over what he considered to not be "good debate". Good to finally see some mod intervention there. What do you consider to be good debate miaow, serious question?

Taylorman wrote:Next you go up against a, date I say it, SH side in SA, a side that knows, unlike Wales, how to win these things.

I guess you’re going to give me the ‘history means nothing speech’ again huh?

Well to be fair you keep telling us the RC teams always step up, and would do so again this year. Two of them didn't and are out - one of them were out in the group stage. SA are world class no doubt about that but they will be similar to France, perhaps more attritional. It is their strength. It's expected although it isn't easy to halt it, so whilst France caught us out I think Wales will be better prepared for SA. It will probably be a similar sort of game to the last two times we've played them at world cups. Hopefully with us winning this time though.

It does and it doesn't. If France step up then they would have done so earlier. The last decade shows that the SF was a one-off, which they still lost. The truth is a lot of teams step up for big competitions (IE tier 2 and minnows) anyway, not just France.

None.

is this really a question or just an excuse for the usual suspects to tee off on each other?

quinsforever wrote:Is this really a question or just an excuse for the usual suspects to tee off on each other?

Both I guess

They love it though

Afro wrote:

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

Everyone goes on about it when they win the RWC...

mikey_dragon wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Next you go up against a, date I say it, SH side in SA, a side that knows, unlike Wales, how to win these things.

I guess you’re going to give me the ‘history means nothing speech’ again huh?

Well to be fair you keep telling us the RC teams always step up, and would do so again this year. Two of them didn't and are out - one of them were out in the group stage. SA are world class no doubt about that but they will be similar to France, perhaps more attritional. It is their strength. It's expected although it isn't easy to halt it, so whilst France caught us out I think Wales will be better prepared for SA. It will probably be a similar sort of game to the last two times we've played them at world cups. Hopefully with us winning this time though.

It does and it doesn't. If France step up then they would have done so earlier. The last decade shows that the SF was a one-off, which they still lost. The truth is a lot of teams step up for big competitions (IE tier 2 and minnows) anyway, not just France.

This decade shows the S/F was a one off?
What was 2011, copped liver? They were in the final and nearly won it.

In 2015 they had the misfortune, as Ireland did, to play an AB side who by then had learned how to win them. This time they were 82/18 against to win- the worst of the four likely to win a quarter, yet lost by one, and that was when a red card and a suspect forward pass try intervened. If not for either or both they probably would have won, ahead before both events occurred.

The other three supposedly 'closer' quarters were won by 20 plus.

France definitely stood up again, albeit also contributed to their own downfall. Most were practically laughing at my suggestion to not underestimate them...well...

Na France are done. Genuinely don't think they could have played much better than they did before the red card, and even then, that still saw them basically give away a run in, and better teams would have been closer on the scoreboard. France and France - still inherently flaky and streaky and hard to predict - but their glass ceiling is much lower than it used to be.

No one underestimated them. The result was in line with what most expected, even if the small details were off. Week off probably helped in that regard - they'd clearly done their homework on Welsh exits and were much better in transitions, and that prep work clearly happened on the training field.

Ultimately, Wales won another game fully in the ascendency late on. It happens frequently enough to no longer be surprising in the slightest. If you tipped France to win, you got it wrong.

It short...Wales are the best

Steffan wrote:It short...Wales are the best

Well, the Springboks are in big trouble then.

miaow wrote:Na France are done. Genuinely don't think they could have played much better than they did before the red card, and even then, that still saw them basically give away a run in, and better teams would have been closer on the scoreboard. France and France - still inherently flaky and streaky and hard to predict - but their glass ceiling is much lower than it used to be.

No one underestimated them. The result was in line with what most expected, even if the small details were off. Week off probably helped in that regard - they'd clearly done their homework on Welsh exits and were much better in transitions, and that prep work clearly happened on the training field.

Ultimately, Wales won another game fully in the ascendency late on. It happens frequently enough to no longer be surprising in the slightest. If you tipped France to win, you got it wrong.

not sure I understand that bit - they lost by 1 and were ahead the whole time before that?

Heaf: A better attaking team than Wales would have been more ruthless in taking points against France in the first half i.e. a better team wouldn't have been 12-0 and then, when they scored a walk in, 19-10 down when France hitting their stride. Wales are content to play the long game and just do enough for the sake of 'the gameplan' - a freer, better attack would have been ahead earlier, and been closer before the red card happened. Might have conceded more than Wales, but probably would have scored more, too.

Yes it happens when you have a whole lot of conflicts in your mind but then just spew it out onto paper anyway.

This is better: 'Genuinely don't think they could have played much better than they did before the red card,'

'Genuinely' gives the statement more credibility, because without it, we'd all probably be (foolishly) thinking that being a man down for the rest of the match is a disadvantage to our side.

One things right though. France are done. (probably should have left it there perhaps).

Taylorman wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Next you go up against a, date I say it, SH side in SA, a side that knows, unlike Wales, how to win these things.

I guess you’re going to give me the ‘history means nothing speech’ again huh?

Well to be fair you keep telling us the RC teams always step up, and would do so again this year. Two of them didn't and are out - one of them were out in the group stage. SA are world class no doubt about that but they will be similar to France, perhaps more attritional. It is their strength. It's expected although it isn't easy to halt it, so whilst France caught us out I think Wales will be better prepared for SA. It will probably be a similar sort of game to the last two times we've played them at world cups. Hopefully with us winning this time though.

It does and it doesn't. If France step up then they would have done so earlier. The last decade shows that the SF was a one-off, which they still lost. The truth is a lot of teams step up for big competitions (IE tier 2 and minnows) anyway, not just France.

This decade shows the S/F was a one off?
What was 2011, copped liver? They were in the final and nearly won it.

In 2015 they had the misfortune, as Ireland did, to play an AB side who by then had learned how to win them. This time they were 82/18 against to win- the worst of the four likely to win a quarter, yet lost by one, and that was when a red card and a suspect forward pass try intervened. If not for either or both they probably would have won, ahead before both events occurred.

The other three supposedly 'closer' quarters were won by 20 plus.

France definitely stood up again, albeit also contributed to their own downfall. Most were practically laughing at my suggestion to not underestimate them...well...

If you look at the last decade, France have underachieved. More-so from 2011 onwards, before that they were still good. I just don't get the argument that France step up at world cups. If you look at their overall record in the last 3 it's poor. If you look at their record in the 6N from 2012 onwards then that is also quite poor. You can argue they made a final in 2011 if you like, with the help of a red card. You keep suggesting that Wales won this recent one due to a red card but seem to be quiet about the red card in 2011.

In 2015 yeah they were garbage then too. They got convincingly beaten by Ireland, and then slaughtered by NZ. In this world cup they struggled against USA, Tonga and didn't play a full 80 against Arg. They played their best game against Wales and still lost. That's not really stepping up, considering they're one of the biggest and wealthiest out there. Uruguay stepped up when they beat Fiji. Fiji stepped up when they were able to compete with tier 1 nations. Japan, yeah they stepped up to. I just don't think France did step up at all, and if they played England they probably would have lost that one too.

Nobody underestimates France in the 6N that's for sure. The reason being they have a lot of good players, not because of magic which seems to be your argument.

France in World Cups since perhaps 2003 have not been very good.

Yes I know they got to the final in 2011 but they still lost 3 times in that tournament. 2011 did show that the nerves of knock out rugby can do funny things to teams. NZ almost froze in the final, similar to Wales in the 1/4 final this time. Yet ultimately sport is about winners and losers. NZ won the cup in 2011, Wales the 1/4 final in 2019 and are still in with damn good chance of making their first final.

New Zealand did freeze in the 2011 final, they only got over the line thanks to possibly the worst refereeing display I can remember.

Soul Requiem wrote:New Zealand did freeze in the 2011 final, they only got over the line thanks to possibly the worst refereeing display I can remember.

The worst I can remember vividly is Bryce Lawrence.

France put in one of their best performances in the last 4 years against Wales, while Wales put in one of their worst - France still lost, and Wales still won. Did the rest week help? I think so.

miaow wrote:France put in one of their best performances in the last 4 years against Wales, while Wales put in one of their worst - France still lost, and Wales still won. Did the rest week help? I think so.

Part of the reason things went the way they did was Wales were beat up from struggling through qualification. Its harder to be sure on France, but I certainly dont think getting humped by England wouldve done their morale much good, although if that chap had lost his rag a week earlier and not been in the team....

Its daft to think the rest didnt help England, NZ and France if nothing more than avoiding injuries/suspensions. How much is harder to quantify, but not enough to change the results of the games which is what really matters at the end. Wales mightve had a small gripe had they gone out, but really they havent been at their best in the world cup and thats not the fault of others getting a rest week.

Personally saw alot of similarities with the 6 nations game between france and wales.. I had wales down to win as I thought the french were a crazy bunch of guys who would try stupid off loads etc and let wales defence pressure then into it. Didn't quite see the red card but dobt think it had much to do with wales tiring etc