Which set of fans is most delusional about their team's prospects at the World Cup this autumn?

First topic message reminder :

I thought I'd start by looking at the results of a recent poll on this site about who would win the World Cup:
New Zealand 46%
South Africa 3%
Australia 16%
England 8%
Wales 4%
Scotland 3%
France 3%
Ireland 9%
Italy 0%
Argentina 1%
Total votes cast: 132

Then I thought I'd better take account of representation of posters on this site cos I thought that might have influenced the first poll:
New Zealand 3%
Australia 6%
South Africa 3%
Ireland 30%
England 20%
France 1%
Wales 21%
Argentina 0%
Scotland 7%
Fiji 0%
Samoa 1%
Italy 0%
Japan 0%
Georgia 0%
Canada 0%
Tonga 0%
United States 1%
Romania 2%
Russia 0%
Portugal 0%
Total votes cast : 88

Then I thought that maybe we should take into account current IRB rankings:
1 NEW ZEALAND 93.19
2 AUSTRALIA 87.45
3 SOUTH AFRICA 86.44
4 IRELAND 82.51
5 ENGLAND 82.48
6 FRANCE 82.06
7 WALES 79.55
8 ARGENTINA 78.97
9 SCOTLAND 77.35
10 FIJI 74.05
11 SAMOA 74.02
12 ITALY 73.54
13 JAPAN 71.45
14 GEORGIA 70.30
15 CANADA 69.78
16 TONGA 68.90
17 USA 66.78
18 ROMANIA 65.57
19 RUSSIA 61.93
20 NAMIBIA 61.43

And then lastly I thought it was worth looking at the most likely match-ups from the quarter finals onwards:
QFs:
NZ vs Argentina/Scotland
France vs England
Australia vs Wales
Ireland vs South Africa
SFs:
England/France vs Australia
NZ vs South Africa
F:
? vs ?

So, from the results of the first poll, the All Blacks are perhaps rightly the overwhelming favourites, with Australia in second. Perhaps the surprise package of that poll was the Irish in 3rd, with South Africa languishing - always dangerous to right off the Boks. However maybe poll 2 about representation gives us a clue, as the Irish are the most heavily represented nation on here in that poll, closely followed by the English. Looking at the world rankings, there appears to be 3 distinct groups in the top 9 countries - a top tier of the big SH names, a middle tier of arguably the strongest NH countries, and a lower tier of Wales, Argentina and Scotland. I suspect that it is my likely match-ups for the QFs which will cause the most controversy tho - I know that many Irish fans believe that they have the beating of Australia on neutral territory, and hence they believe that they can top their group and face NH oppo on a track to the final, where, lets be honest, anything can happen. Perhaps England, Wales and Scotland have the toughest groups, in that at least 2 of their group matches represent potential banana skins - Argentina & Scotland for England, South Africa & Samoa for Wales, Argentina & England for Scotland.

So given all the above complications, which set of fans have lost the plot so far when it comes to realistically assessing their team's chances at the World Cup?

Notch wrote:I don't think those games will matter dreamer. I don't even think the early group games will matter, assuming teams do enough not to get knocked out.

It's all about peaking at the right time. Look at England in 2007.

England didn't peak in 2007. Everyone underestimated them because they were so woeful in the group stages. This is classic case of history being rewritten. That was a very poor England side who got a couple of freak results against better sides.

red_stag wrote:So what your saying Alyn is that Gatland is a genius

Ni I'm basically saying Wales teams have pussíed put of games against Fiji and Samoa in the past due to their physicality but this Wales team is very physical and we have tended to lose a hell of a lot of tries to them from making mistakes under pressure and being reckless. I dont think this Wales team will give those oppertunities to the Island sides in the World Cup.
The real question for me if what kind of shape Wales and Fiji will be in in the final game because Samoa and South Africa will of taken a lot out of both teams. I'd be amazed if Wales gets past the quarters though knowing Wales we will probably be out in the pool stage.

If Ireland can beat Australia in the pool stage you'd be up against a Wales or Fiji team that's probably going to be in pieces so the Semi's wont be beyond you.

Not just Fiji and Samoa, but your "easy" game is against Namibia, a side containing several pretty brutal players, not least Burger from Sarries. You should win that game, but again it'll be a physical contest. Gatland better have some good players in NZ on standbye.

Alyn you know what my biggest fear about this World Cup is:

Ireland to win all the games in our group and qualify top
Wales to lose to SA and qualify second
Ireland v Wales quarter final with Ireland losing

when you think about it stag he has been clever, although boring rugby we wont play expanisvely against fiji and samoa and our set pieces have become strong, then against SA we have built strength in forwards to be able to hopefully stop SA dominate with their forwards.

so almost he has0 thing is we are screwed if we make it to the quarters- that is the thing Gats has forgot.


BUT i am remaining positive our 2nd team drew to fiji so our 1st should win, and samoa arent ussually as good as fiji so....

Samoa are a lot better than Fiji IMO. I think its funny how much the Welsh fear this Fijian team.

roddersm wrote:

Notch wrote:I don't think those games will matter dreamer. I don't even think the early group games will matter, assuming teams do enough not to get knocked out.

It's all about peaking at the right time. Look at England in 2007.

England didn't peak in 2007. Everyone underestimated them because they were so woeful in the group stages. This is classic case of history being rewritten. That was a very poor England side who got a couple of freak results against better sides.

You're saying that they didn't play considerably better against Australia and France than they had at any point in the group stages? There wasn't anything freakish about those wins; they deserved to win both games. They raised their game in those matches and were the better side on the day.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Not just Fiji and Samoa, but your "easy" game is against Namibia, a side containing several pretty brutal players, not least Burger from Sarries. You should win that game, but again it'll be a physical contest. Gatland better have some good players in NZ on standbye.

Namibia wont be much of a problem as Namibias priority will be making sure they dont ship 100+ points against their next door neighbours South Africa. Namibia play South Africa then have Wales 4 days later so they will play 2 different teams. Personally I think they know they will lose both games so will want to keep the score down against South Africa. they will also know Wales will rest most of their team as they sould of played South Africa and Samoa, so will want to heal up before the Fiji game.

Wales should easily dispose of Fiji, Samoa are a far better side.

I'd say the positive about the Wales group is that whilst it's a rough group for Wales, it's a rough group for everyone else, and whilst Wales may well lose two games, it's entirely possible that they could still go through if they can get enough bonus points.

I could see Wales losing to Samoa, but Samoa then losing to Fiji or Namibia and Wales managing to beat both sides scoring 4 tries. It's an intriguing group.

red_stag wrote:Samoa are a lot better than Fiji IMO. I think its funny how much the Welsh fear this Fijian team.

No one fears Fiji. They put their first team out against us last year and only just scraped a draw, while we had Ian Gough, Deiniol Jones, at locks, Jonathan Thomas at no8, Bennett at Hooker, Biggar at 10 etc. If they cant smash that team they won't worry the first Welsh team. Wales fear Samoa they have beaten us twice in World Cups and once in Apia as well, so 3 games. Fiji arent like Samoa, but luckily enough we have Allain Rowland and Wayne Barnes for those games, 2 very picky referees when it comes to dangerous tackles, I wouldnt be suprised to see Islander players taking a lot of breaks in those games. Tonga and especially Samoa tend to get a lot of yellow cards and that will cost them dearly against the better teams.

Another thing to note is Wales tend to come unstuck against Island teams because we cant make any kind of game plan because they used to play so rarely, now they play many games a year and those games are easily accessable. So Wales will have far more idea than in previous years of what they will be up against.

[quote="Notch"]

roddersm wrote:
You're saying that they didn't play considerably better against Australia and France than they had at any point in the group stages? There wasn't anything freakish about those wins; they deserved to win both games. They raised their game in those matches and were the better side on the day.

Well notch they couldn't have played worse than they did against SA or Somoa. England might have been finalists but they weren't the 2nd best side in the tournament that year by any stretch of the imagination. Argentina or NZ would have taken them to the cleaners and so would France and Australia if they hadn't have taken them so lightly. England deserved their victories and were the better side on the day but lets not delude ourselves that England peaked at the WC. They got a a couple of lucky breaks i.e.France beating the AB's and Farrell getting injured and took their chances.

I didn't vote for anyone as I don't see any nation being particularly delusional for once. Back on the old 606 it usually was the Welsh being completely over the top but at the minute they've gone from one extreme to another and are almost expecting to go out in the group stage. I can see why people would vote for ourselves and England but I think a semi final for us and a final appearance for England (on account of the draw) are completely realistic goals. What I would say however is that France are seemingly completely discounted. I know they had a very poor six nations by their standards but for some reason the idea of them turning up and beating England or even New Zealand (remember they did even manage to beat them in NZ a couple of summers ago, never mind at the world cup) is not being considered particularly possible. If anyone is being delusional here, I'd say it's regarding the French. I think it was you Notch who had goals of only four nations reaching the final as realistic (NZ, SA, Aus and England). If I was French, and my route to the final was Eng/Sco/Argentina and then Aus/Ire/Wales/Samoa (assuming they lose to NZ in the group), I would be quite confident that getting to the final is extremely realistic despite their poor recent form.

Notch wrote:

roddersm wrote:
You're saying that they didn't play considerably better against Australia and France than they had at any point in the group stages? There wasn't anything freakish about those wins; they deserved to win both games. They raised their game in those matches and were the better side on the day.

Well notch they couldn't have played worse than they did against SA or Somoa. England might have been finalists but they weren't the 2nd best side in the tournament that year by any stretch of the imagination. Argentina or NZ would have taken them to the cleaners and so would France and Australia if they hadn't have taken them so lightly. England deserved their victories and were the better side on the day but lets not delude ourselves that England peaked at the WC. They got a a couple of lucky breaks i.e.France beating the AB's and Farrell getting injured and took their chances.

A peak in form is just form relative to previous form. It's a shorthand way of saying they improved as the tournament went on which you seem to agree with in your first sentence.

And I would say England were the second best rugby side in the tournament; second best at handling the pressure of knockout rugby where Australia, France and NZ all faltered. That's what matters; not how well you play in the group stage. Not the style of rugby. How you react under pressure and your winning mentality is what sees you through the close games, and knockout games are normally close.

Putting their wins down to Australia and France taking them lightly seems really disrespectful. I doubt any professional side goes into a World Cup quarter or semi taking their opposition lightly or thinking third gear will get them through, and I don't think either side did that with England. England just seemed mentally stronger to me.

Can't be bothered reading but it has to be us Irish, sure we're rubbish but we'll do amazing down in New Zealand but remember, we're rubbish.

Boyne, I'm sure you remember what happened the last time Ireland played England before a WC? We had a close game in Croke park (lost by 30 points) and then went on to the final. This year (lost by 16 points) we should surely win it.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Yet another article designed to bash the English, of course we're confident we've reached the last two finals and in 2007 we were awful, the team have a lot to learn but the draw is favourable, Argentina aren't as strong as 2007 and to be honest I'm more worried about Scotland as you just don't know what they'll do?

I voted for Irelands golden generation!

Bath_BTGOG, you couldn't be further from the truth - not paranoid, are you?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Yet another article designed to bash the English, of course we're confident we've reached the last two finals and in 2007 we were awful, the team have a lot to learn but the draw is favourable, Argentina aren't as strong as 2007 and to be honest I'm more worried about Scotland as you just don't know what they'll do?

I voted for Irelands golden generation!

Bath_BTGOG, you couldn't be further from the truth - not paranoid, are you?

We all know you can't stand the English As. Damn Exeter supporters

Fair comments as always Notch and perhaps I am being too harsh. I don't think England were as good as you're making out but maybe they weren't as bad as I suggested either. At the end of the day you make your own luck and they made the final on merit.

I didn't say they were good Rodders. I said they won the important games.

That's the only thing that matters in a RWC, otherwise we would just give the trophy to the team with the best record in the previous four years.

Hey don't let Greyghost hear you say that one notch!

England game an example or 15 (22) average to decent players each doing their bit for a collective good performance.

HammerofThunor wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Yet another article designed to bash the English, of course we're confident we've reached the last two finals and in 2007 we were awful, the team have a lot to learn but the draw is favourable, Argentina aren't as strong as 2007 and to be honest I'm more worried about Scotland as you just don't know what they'll do?

I voted for Irelands golden generation!

Bath_BTGOG, you couldn't be further from the truth - not paranoid, are you?

We all know you can't stand the English As. Damn Exeter supporters

Loyalty to the crown, Thunor, loyalty to the crown!!

Boyne wrote:
Notch, after the paddling England took in Dublin, again, for the 7th time in 8 games, can you honestly say that there is any hope of England winning the WC??

Not a chance in the world.

Of course England have a chance.

roddersm wrote:

England didn't peak in 2007. Everyone underestimated them because they were so woeful in the group stages. This is classic case of history being rewritten. That was a very poor England side who got a couple of freak results against better sides.

Sorry, I disagree. England were the better side on both those days as is proven by the result of both those games. You do NOT get freak results in RWC knockout stages.

I agree nottins please read my subsequent post.

people stop bickering the whole point of 606 v2 is to be better than 606 and to try and keep people social and allow people to have their opinions, but bickering about your countries makes the rest of your country men/women look bad, now grow up and lets have a reasonable debate (this is a tennage old talking so surely you adults should be more responsible)

Sometimes I think Kiwis are delusional in thinking that theyre not going to win it. Call it deja vu or something

problem is with the AB is that they are so formidable and have such a close bond and tend to have a good depth of players, the one problem i can see this time is that whereas in the centres you have nonu, SBW, smith, fraeun etc at fly half there only quality FH that i know of is carter, and if he gets injured...

The Welsh are clearly most delusional, hardly any Taff posters think we have a chance!

New Zealand are the best and will be at home so are favourites. Australia, France or South Africa are probably the only teams capable of beating the All Blacks in New Zealand. England have a favourable draw and could reach the final. They're probably not good enough to beat South Africa or New Zealand if they meet them. Ireland will probably loose to Australia in the group and get knocked out by South Africa in the quarters. Tough draw. Tough luck. Wales will have a tough battle in the groups but should come second and then get knocked out by Australia in the quarters. Argentina and Scotland will probably have to fight for second behind England and then face New Zealand in the quarters.

Everybody knows the score, and I don't see much delusion from any fans. There will be shocks though that could turn the tournament on its head. The potential shocks

Australia v Ireland
Italy v Ireland
New Zealand v France
England v Argentina
England v Scotland
Wales v Samoa
Wales v Fiji

In particular, if England, Australia or New Zealand lose a game they should win, it will make the quarters look very different. Us Irish are just hoping for a shock against Australia. This would give us a root to the final we could do. Wales and England. Is it delusional to think we could beat Australia down south? Delusional is probably to strong a word. We're up against it though.

I don't think it is delusional. Last time two times we played against Australia in Australia they've won by 6 points and 7 points respectively. I feel they'll be considered heavy favourites, but if the players don't believe they can beat them there is something seriously wrong. Even games we've lost against them, the players will have come off the field thinking they could have taken something had they been a little more clinical, a little more precise, a little tighter in defence... psychologically I don't think we'll be intimidated by the prospect of facing the Aussies.

On a good day, I think we have a chance against them. They are beatable. We must be careful to respect them as the talented and dangerous team they are whilst not putting them up on a pedestal.

For me it's Wales. I hope I'm wrong, but I think Wales will really struggle to even make the quarters. They're in a real group of death with SA, Fiji, Samoa and Namibia. Even though the bookies have them 1/7 to qualify from their pool, their record against the pacific islanders isn't the best and nor too i's Wales firm. Won 7 out of last 22 and 4 of those wins were against the Italians and the scots. The only team ranked above them they've beaten was Ireland and we all know what happened there!

[quote="roddersm"]

Notch wrote:

roddersm wrote:
You're saying that they didn't play considerably better against Australia and France than they had at any point in the group stages? There wasn't anything freakish about those wins; they deserved to win both games. They raised their game in those matches and were the better side on the day.

Well notch they couldn't have played worse than they did against SA or Somoa. England might have been finalists but they weren't the 2nd best side in the tournament that year by any stretch of the imagination. Argentina or NZ would have taken them to the cleaners and so would France and Australia if they hadn't have taken them so lightly. England deserved their victories and were the better side on the day but lets not delude ourselves that England peaked at the WC. They got a a couple of lucky breaks i.e.France beating the AB's and Farrell getting injured and took their chances.

I love this attitude. Saying Australia and France would have beaten them. Well, they got the chance, and they didn't, so I'm glad you have so much faith in these teams of 4 years ago and know exactly why the didn't manage to give England a hiding, but I think most England fans will be happy with the outcome of those games, regardless of you thinking they were not taken seriously.

I bet you wish some teams would under estimate the Irish more often

Good to see you on here Lewsey !

I agree England played better, beat both and deserved their final place. Perhaps what I posted was unfair to England but I think France and Australia were certainly better sides on paper.

Yes it would be great if more teams underestimated us but unfortunately its only england who seem to !

i'm getting a sense that many people think Ireland are been overhyped here, so i had a look at some recent stats:

last 5 games v australia: australia won 2(both by less than 7 in oz), ireland won 1 and 1 draw.
last 5 v south africa: SA won 2 ireland won 3
last 5 v nz: nz won 5 (ok we've never beaten the abs!)
last 5 v england: england won 1 ireland won 4
last 5 v france: france won 2 ireland won 3

when you see look at the stats all you can see ireland really can beat anyone but the ABs on their day.

i'll still not going to overhype ireland, i think we've a half decent chance to get to the semis, but quarters is most realistic.

At the same time, whilst Italy have a poor record against Ireland, we'd be very foolish to take them lightly. They lurk in our path as a bananaskin and we'll need to do much better against them than last time out... God that was close!

For Italy, the Ireland game is the Cup Final they've been building towards for four years.

I agree little john but I don't think we've beaten France 3 times out of the last 5?!!

littlejohn wrote:i'm getting a sense that many people think Ireland are been overhyped here, so i had a look at some recent stats:

last 5 games v australia: australia won 2(both by less than 7 in oz), ireland won 1 and 1 draw.
last 5 v south africa: SA won 2 ireland won 3
last 5 v nz: nz won 5 (ok we've never beaten the abs!)
last 5 v england: england won 1 ireland won 4
last 5 v france: france won 2 ireland won 3

when you see look at the stats all you can see ireland really can beat anyone but the ABs on their day.

i'll still not going to overhype ireland, i think we've a half decent chance to get to the semis, but quarters is most realistic.

Not sure where you're getting your stats from as Ireland have only won 1 out of their last 10 games against France.

Littlejohn, we certainly haven't beaten France 3 of our last 5 games. Also you have only listed 4 games v Australia.

littlejohn wrote:i'm getting a sense that many people think Ireland are been overhyped here, so i had a look at some recent stats:

last 5 games v australia: australia won 2(both by less than 7 in oz), ireland won 1 and 1 draw.
last 5 v south africa: SA won 2 ireland won 3
last 5 v nz: nz won 5 (ok we've never beaten the abs!)
last 5 v england: england won 1 ireland won 4
last 5 v france: france won 2 ireland won 3

when you see look at the stats all you can see ireland really can beat anyone but the ABs on their day.

i'll still not going to overhype ireland, i think we've a half decent chance to get to the semis, but quarters is most realistic.

Of the stats I can find:

last 5 games v australia: australia won 3(1 less than 7 in oz), ireland won 1 and 1 draw
last 5 v france: france won 4 ireland won 1

Ireland are a very good side and I think they'll give a much better account of themselves this WC. I don't see them beating Australia though, but I think they could beat the Boks in the QFs, I'm not dismissing SA but I feel that match up suits their style of play more.

The question is how they'll fair against both those teams on neutral ground, where they've never met before. They haven't beaten Aus away from home since 1979 and have never beaten SA away from home.

caoimhincentre wrote:no one seems to be factoring in the french. What if they do what they typically do against NZ. That would certainly make things interesting

Do you mean upsetting NZ or getting on the wrong end of a 50 point hiding. There's not really anything typical about the French.

johnpartle wrote:

littlejohn wrote:i'm getting a sense that many people think Ireland are been overhyped here, so i had a look at some recent stats:

last 5 games v australia: australia won 2(both by less than 7 in oz), ireland won 1 and 1 draw.
last 5 v south africa: SA won 2 ireland won 3
last 5 v nz: nz won 5 (ok we've never beaten the abs!)
last 5 v england: england won 1 ireland won 4
last 5 v france: france won 2 ireland won 3

when you see look at the stats all you can see ireland really can beat anyone but the ABs on their day.

i'll still not going to overhype ireland, i think we've a half decent chance to get to the semis, but quarters is most realistic.

Ooops my bad - i pulled em from wikipedia, think it needs correction there! Anyway, i was trying to make a point (ok not very well in the end) that ireland can beat anyone on their day apart from the ABs. if we did meet them, in fairness our only hope would be if they lost Carter or bottled it!


Of the stats I can find:

last 5 games v australia: australia won 3(1 less than 7 in oz), ireland won 1 and 1 draw
last 5 v france: france won 4 ireland won 1

Ireland are a very good side and I think they'll give a much better account of themselves this WC. I don't see them beating Australia though, but I think they could beat the Boks in the QFs, I'm not dismissing SA but I feel that match up suits their style of play more.

The question is how they'll fair against both those teams on neutral ground, where they've never met before. They haven't beaten Aus away from home since 1979 and have never beaten SA away from home.

The question is how they'll fair against both those teams on neutral ground, where they've never met before. They haven't beaten Aus away from home since 1979 and have never beaten SA away from home..

I would have to agree with Ireland being the most over-hyped. Apart from the England game they struggled in the 6N and I would be surprised to see them beat either Australia or Sth Africa away frome home. Of course it could happen but not having beaten Aust away from home in 30+ years and having never beaten SA away from from home, the odds are stacked against them. Having Aust first up will be tough for them. Provided the Wallabies come trough the 3N relatively injury-free, thye will be match-hardened after playing the top 2 sides several times in the previous months. Don't know who Ireland are playing prior to their first game of the WC but they wouldn't have been testing themselves against any of the top sides.

We're playing Scotland, France twice and England.

Ireland and England most delusional. England beats Wallabies in England and Ireland beats England in last game of 6N, then all of a sudden you got the Wallabies being beaten by Ireland in the pool game and England winning the whole thing. Dont get me wrong, Ireland AT ITS VERY BEST can beat anyone, but so can half a dozen teams. Ireland hasn't beaten Wallabies away from Ireland in around 30 years. Like all 6N sides, hard to beat at home, but they don't look threatening at this RWC in NZ. They will have to deal with different surroundings, pressure and conditions AND still bring their BEST game to win their pool - can't see Ireland doing it at all.

I think NZ will win - let's face if they can't win at home (they have rarely dropped a test there in the last 60 years), then they might as well stop playing the game. They have the best No, 7 and No. 10 in the world and most of their players would make any World XV.

As for anyone who could really put the wind up them I am seeing the Wallabies as the ascendant team. Awful in 08 and 09. Starting to see some results in '10 - the only team to beat the ABs and they beat SA in SA as well as in Aust. In addition, they lost to the ABs in Sydney 22-23 with a questionable try to the ABs late in the game. Super Rugby provides a window into the current form of the SH players. This year in the Super Rugby comp the Reds from Queensland are minor premiers, having beaten all the top sides from SA and NZ including Crusaders and Blues (loaded with All Blacks across the field) and The Stormers (basically the Springboks).

Will be very intersting watching ABs and Wallabies again in the 3N - right before the WC. Form will be everything.

I vote for Ireland, why? Well there are a number of Irish supporters rather confident that they can beat SA in the RWC. The history of the two teams suggest otherwise. Ireland has never won a knock out match in their history at the RWC.

Ireland lost their quarter final match in 1987
Ireland lost their quarter final in 1991
Ireland lost their quarter final in 1995
Ireland didn't qualify for the quarter finals in 1999
Ireland lost their quarter final match in 2003
Ireland didn't qualify for the quarter finals in 2007.

South Africa on the other hand has won 7 out of 9 knock out matches.

Historically SA play knock out matches well, they have only lost to australia 27-21 in the semi final in 1999 and to New zealand 29-9 in the quarter fianl in 2003.

They have won 3 quarter finals, two semi finals and two finals totalling 7 knock out match wins.

It is true that Ireland has won 3 of their last 5 matches against SA, but they have never beaten the Boks outside of Ireland and there are a number of posters that believe history counts for nothng.

Many beleive form is everything going into this world cup.

Well Ireland has done well with their regional teams during the last few years, but so has SA, winning the Super 14 3 times since 2007, we also had three teams fighting it out this year to qualify for the play offs.

The other factor is 20 of our provisional squad for the RWC has won a RWC gold medal.

The possibility is always there that Ireland could beat us, after all this is sport, and with a coach I do not have to much faith in it is possible. But the experience and physicality of our boys should pull us through at least until we meet our arch rivals the All Blacks.

To be honest, I think Ireland have a better chance of beating Australia in the group game than they do of beating the Boks in a knock-out match (not a great chance of either, but certainly some hope especially if they can put out their first choice back row). If they manage that it does put the cat among the pigeons regarding how the draw pans out - would put all three Tri-nations sides in the same half and would almost guarantee a NH finalist (unless Argentina get the better of us in the group).

I think it would actually reduce the likelihood of England getting to the final (over the last few years we've been poorer against Ireland than against Australia), and would certainly give the Irish a much better chance of having a great tournament.

Rob B
I don't think anyone has predicted England to win - I reckon we have a slightly better than 50/50 chance of getting to the SF and (assuming that's against Australia) are about evens for the SF, so one time in 4 we will reach the final. Chances of beating the ABs or Boks (whoever survives their SF)? Slim, very slim.

Australia, as usual, will have a good team from 6 to 15, but have struggled over the last few years with set piece players in the front 5 (excluding Moore at hooker), and that will be a big deficiency in a knock-out competition. Maybe they will get it sorted in the Tri-Nations, but then again maybe they will lose a couple of their better front 5 members and be weakened. Certainly looks like odd scheduling

Agree dummy_half. Even Robbie Deans said the other day the focus on this year will be the tight 5 for the Wallabies. I hope that means he is taking it seriously as many don't think Deans has speant enought time on that area. If everyone is fit to go the tight 5 will look quite different to last year and hopefully for the better. Polota Nau is a world class hooker, Steve Kefu, Dan Vickerman and Palu - if those guys are all in then the pack should be fine.
Scheduling is shocking as the 3N has to be cut short by a third. I wonder if the IRB would dare cutting the 6N short for the RWC?

I'm amazed that Wales have so many votes. I haven't seen too many people on here talking Wales up. If anything most of us think we're in for a real struggle just to make the knockouts...

If we continue our six nations form we could finish second bottom...