RWC 2011 Pool B Speculation...!

Pool B

Argentina (8) 78.97

England (5) 82.48

Georgia (15) 70.30

Romania (18) 65.57

Scotland (9) 77.35

England as Six Nations Champions have to be favourites for this Pool, they were the strongest team in the NH annual championship, but they struggled as the tournament wore on. Convincing wins over Wales and very convincing over Italy preceded a narrower win against France and less convincing win against Scotland and finally loss to ireland. They are promising but not the finished article. England should top this pool but they need convincing performances to get them started towards greater things later on in this tournament.

Scotland having beaten Argentina in Argentina twice leaving them as second favourites in this pool. Scotland are not the finished article either, strong in the pack though unconvincing behind, they have struggled to score tries. Look better with Jackson at flyhalf though, a decent inside center to partner Ansbro and they could be a good side easily underestimated.

Argentina were on great form in 07 but havent shown much of that since, missing star player like Hernandez they are not the force they were. They haven't shown the form they did going in to this tournament that they did in 07. I dont think we can expect a repeat this time.

Georgia are a new rising star in Europe's lower tiers, a strong forward orientated team. They caused former semi finalists in 07 Argentina problems at the last world cup holding them to 6-3 at half time. But have previously lost 83 - 0 to England. It is great that they are in the world cup again and hopefully give a better showing than last time, showing their improvements they were ranked 17th in 07 they are 15th now. Winners of the European nations cup since 2006 they are knocking on the door.

Romania, bottom seed in this pool but a former giant of the second tier of rugby, they almost beat the all blacks in the early eighties and have beeten a whole host of top tier nations in their illustrious past. They have never beaten England or Argentina but have beaten Scotland twice and Georgia 13 times. But all a long time in the past.

This pool is totally up for grabs. England start deserved favourites and I think they will qualify if they get their selection right. Good pack, solid defense and some good runners (Foden, Ashton). Don't think they are outstanding anywhere, but also don't see them as having any glaring weaknesses either.

Argentina were the surprise package (well to me anyway) of 2007. Not because of their forwards, they typically are good up front, but rather the backs with Hernandez and Contepomi running things. Contepomi will be 34 and not sure how Hernandez is playing. Argentina are usually solid but that may not be enough this time.

Scotland - hhmmm - will the real Scotland stand up. Will they be the abrasive controlled outfit who beat Argentina upfront on Argentina's turf and deservedly bested SA. Or will they be the woeful unit who when faced with an unimpressive Welsh side, at times reduced by yellow cards, decided to play the worst 80 minutes of rugby I've ever seen them play.

Sure Georgia and Romania will be motivated and Georgia especially could cause pain but the 3 main sides will expect to get past them and will want to simply avoid injuries. Hopefully Georgia will continue developing and by 2015 will be a banana skin to avoid. Not meaning disrespect but it would cause amusement for many participants if any of the 3 main sides lost to either of them.

I believe England will qualify as I don't see them losing to both Scotland and Argentina but much stranger things have happened. If Argentina upset them and also beat Scotland, then it will be a tense dog-fight for 2nd place. I suspect they may want Argentina to beat Scotland as I think Scotland are more likely to cause problems for England (if they beat Argentina) than vice-versa. No evidence to back up that statement just gut feel.

Boston Exile wrote:This pool is totally up for grabs. England start deserved favourites and I think they will qualify if they get their selection right. Good pack, solid defense and some good runners (Foden, Ashton). Don't think they are outstanding anywhere, but also don't see them as having any glaring weaknesses either.

Argentina were the surprise package (well to me anyway) of 2007. Not because of their forwards, they typically are good up front, but rather the backs with Hernandez and Contepomi running things. Contepomi will be 34 and not sure how Hernandez is playing. Argentina are usually solid but that may not be enough this time.

Scotland - hhmmm - will the real Scotland stand up. Will they be the abrasive controlled outfit who beat Argentina upfront on Argentina's turf and deservedly bested SA. Or will they be the woeful unit who when faced with an unimpressive Welsh side, at times reduced by yellow cards, decided to play the worst 80 minutes of rugby I've ever seen them play.

Sure Georgia and Romania will be motivated and Georgia especially could cause pain but the 3 main sides will expect to get past them and will want to simply avoid injuries. Hopefully Georgia will continue developing and by 2015 will be a banana skin to avoid. Not meaning disrespect but it would cause amusement for many participants if any of the 3 main sides lost to either of them.

I believe England will qualify as I don't see them losing to both Scotland and Argentina but much stranger things have happened. If Argentina upset them and also beat Scotland, then it will be a tense dog-fight for 2nd place. I suspect they may want Argentina to beat Scotland as I think Scotland are more likely to cause problems for England (if they beat Argentina) than vice-versa. No evidence to back up that statement just gut feel.

I agree. As an England supporter I feel more confident against the Pumas than Scotland. That said I think England and Scotland will qualify, no offense but I feel we are the strongest team in the group and the series win in Argentina will have great significance for your team in my opinion.

I agree. As an England supporter I feel more confident against the Pumas than Scotland. That said I think England and Scotland will qualify, no offense but I feel we are the strongest team in the group and I think Scotland will continue to improve under Robinson. I also feel that the series win in Argentina will have great significance for when you meet the Pumas this time around.

Not sure I agree. Scotland and Argentina are strong in the forwards, where England is strong. And with Tom Wood or Tom Croft, England have a slight advantage. England's backs are overall better, too. Not remotely a big Flood supporter, but the back three is potent. The centres, well, ahem, they can run straight ahead quite well and play powerful defense. Not remotely a cakewalk, but I believe England are better than Scotland and Argentina and are just talented enough to stave off any upsets. This is a better England than 2007. But what happens to them after the pool stages is anyone's guess. I could see them winning the whole thing and just as easily see them going out early. I certainly agree, though, this is a developing England squad, and that leads to a lot of uncertainty.

Scotland is developing, too. And improving. I like their back row and the pack in general. Their biggest hole is at fly half with Dan Parks, and that is like a black hole. They need someone to get the backs moving and not siimply kick for territory. He holds them back. Argentina peaked at the last RWC, and could have made the finals with a few fortunate bounces. There is also a lot of age in that squad now. The match between Scotland and Argentina is definately for the runner-up slot.

I wonder about Georgia. They should have beaten Ireland in the last RWC. I think they should populate the team with 15 Georgian props and they would be unbeatable. Sadly, they can't. The match between Romania and Georgia will be fun to watch on TV just to hear the commentators struggle with the surnames.

If you go by IRB rankings it shows very little between Argentina, England and Scotland.

The fact is all three teams with their forward orientated strong packs play knock out style rugby, so this pool could become hard fought, tough and perhaps not to the taste of "running rugby" the spectators may want to see.

But, I personally think this will be a very interesting pool, and the difference may well be the fact that england more so than Argentina or Scotland, has the ability to use backs that have some skill and talent.

I think that this pool may come down to injuries and who manages their squad well. Georgia are an enormous pack and capable of causing inadvertent injuries to any number of key players. They keep it very tight and are no pushovers.

Qualification for England should be pretty straightforward provided all 22 play to form in each match. Their biggest enemy may be complacency but that is looking a lot less likely than in previous years. Their Tigers and Saints spine has gained some brutal experience this season and it will stand them in good stead. If Youngs can get back to form, they have the strike runners to score tries quite comfortably although I am not convinced that Johnson has nailed down his best pack yet. It's theirs to mess up, frankly.

Oh lord, Scotland. I could write a lot, but my colleague Boston has said it all already. If they get some form and consistency going and minimise mistakes then every team in the pool should be be wary because they can and have beaten everyone there. Much falls on Jackson's shoulders, but if he truly is an international 10, he should be relishing the challenge. Like always, Scotland have either a massive or horrendous performance inside them. We have to trust that Robinson will have them ready.

If anyone hasn't seen Georgia before, they should watch them. A great example of a developing nation with lots of raw talent. Enormous pack, they are the pick of the Eastern European set and qualified in quite a straightforward manner in the end. Am trying to get hold of a Georgia shirt to wear at home.

Argentina have had a mixed time of it, with their formally dominant tight game on the wane, I believe. Their loosies and backs have had a mixed Top 14 season although when added together, they always look dangerous. Their world ranking is slightly generous at present, I think.

Its interesting the way the big pool matches fall in the calendar in this group:

First: England vs Argentina (first pool game for both sides)
Second: Scotland vs Argentina (by this time, Scotland will have warmed up with games against Romania & Georgia, and Argentina will know where they stand, i.e. must beat Scotland to take second to qualify for the quarters)
Third: England vs Scotland (last game of the pool; if both sides have already beaten Argentina, the incentive is to push for a win to avoid NZ in the quarters; becomes even more interesting if Argentina have beaten England)

No disrespect to Romania and Georgia intended - I simply feel that these 3 games will decide the two teams that go forward.

There is always the thought that with a seeded team playing a nation like Georgia that they will rest a large part of their first team. Georgia may cause an upset by taking a big team by surprise. Ireland nearly lost it with their first team playing.

I can't see beyond England and Scotland being the top two if I am honest. Argentina are not the force they were in 2007 and I cannot see them beating either of the the 6 Nations sides.

The only fly in the ointment for me is whether Scotland can avoid a real upset result against either Georgia or Romania. They should be able to, but you always feel there is a chance with them that they could slip up against one of the low ranked sides.

For me, the group is almost certain to finish England, Scotland, Argentina, Georgia, Romania.

This is a very tough group. We all know Argentinas history in Worrld cups and its not too bad.

I would have England as favourites but it will not be easy for them to top the group. If i was an England fan i would be very wary of Scotland, although they are not the finished article, they are starting to look like a strong team. It will be a very interesting group to keep an eye on.

Hmm I would say write off Argentina at your peril. The way the fixtures fall is interesting.

I would fancy England to just beat Argentina in the opener but could see Argentina coming back to beat Scotland. If this were to happen the Scotland v England game could be a real war with the Scots backs to the wall.

I think these three are very evenly matched. All 3 have huge packs. England have the most dangerous outside backs but possibly the weakest back row.

Off the three I do strongly fancy England to go through, if nothing else because I believe they have the capacity to score more points against Georgia and Romania than Scotland or Argentina. Beyond that I think it will be very close between Scotland and Argentina.

It could come down to injuries though as with Romania and Georgia their too whoever comes out of this group will be battered and bruised for sure.

I agree with the point made above that of the three main contenders in this group, England have the greatest ability to put big points past Romania and Georgia, and that may be enough to allow them a slip up against Argentina or Scotland should it come to that.

My own prediction mirrors pretty much the general consensus, England to top the group, Scotland to come second and Argentina to come third. I think the three matches ASBO has listed above will all be hard fought and uncomfortably close, but I think of the three sides, England and Scotland will be the ones to narrowly prevail against Argentina.

The order of fixtures is quite telling as well. Scotland's fixtures are pretty good, and I think the only change I'd make is to switch the Georgia and Romania fixtures. Otherwise we get the two easier games to get ourselves ready and find our rhythm, and then have a decent break to prepare for Argentina. I don't think either Argentina or England will be happy with that first fixture. Quite difficult to hit the ground running.

roddersm, not wanting to count chickens but I fear that you may be giving a little too much credit to Romania and Georgia (famous last words which I will readily eat if proved wrong!). Both will have big-ish packs, but no more so than Arg-Eng-Sco, and the backrows of the big 3 will seem like lightning in comparison to their backrows. I also don't see either side having the backs to trouble A-E-S (yes, even Scotland's laboured lot!) - could be wrong tho, has defo happened before!!

My confidence against Georgia and Romania is more that last point ASBO. Scotland's defence is pretty decent usually, and when we've conceded tries recently (Ireland's two walk-ins aside), they've tended to be against top attacking sides playing at a level both Romania and Georgia aren't capable of (i.e. France and the All Blacks). Against the slower attacking sides building slower phases rather than intensity, we've tended to be able to hold out, even under severe pressure (I'm thinking South Africa and England here).

I don't see Georgia or Romania winning against us to be honest. Not with all the preparation time Robinson has with the players, and the fact that we play them both at the start, so will have a fully fit contingent (hopefully).

This is an intriguing group. You'd expect England to top the group, but when you consider how much they struggled to beat Scotland at home in the Six Nations, it's by no means guaranteed.

I can't wait for the World Cup!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:roddersm, not wanting to count chickens but I fear that you may be giving a little too much credit to Romania and Georgia (famous last words which I will readily eat if proved wrong!).

I think you misunderstood me a bit. I don't expect Romania or Georgia (no disrespect) to beat any of the 3 top tier sides but they are very big and physical, as Ireland found out last time round. If this group comes down to the final round of games injury and depth could play a big part and whoever comes out of this group will have played 4 very physical games on the bounce.

funnyExiledScot wrote: Against the slower attacking sides building slower phases rather than intensity, we've tended to be able to hold out, even under severe pressure (I'm thinking South Africa and England here).
.

Mate I don't agree with you. Perhaps when we play in Scotland you could term the Boks as the Frosen attacking side, hence there were 3 close games in the past decade, of which Scotland won 2.

Apart from that we beat Scotland fairly convincingly.

It will be a big shock IMO if England don't top this group though the Pumas will give them a good game.

2nd will be decided between the Scotland Argentina game.

Good, considered article maestegmafia. As an England fan my main concern in the group stages is Scotland. Outside of Twickenham they have a good record against us. I dont think we have won at Murrayfield since 2006. They do tend to raise the game for England matches as well. On paper I'd say that England have the edge, especially in the backs, but it isnt by enough to overcome my concerns.

Argentina are a lesser side than they were in 2007 based on their results since then, and the loss of several key players however I would never write them off.


People are mentioning that England should get ahead on points difference by racking up scores against Georgia and Romainia. I cant help but see this as a dangerous approach and possibly a tad arrogant considering how close Georgia came to beating Ireland 4 years ago.

Whilst I'm glad that we arent in a group as tough as Wales's, it will be no cakewalk for England. There are two very clear banana skins and one potential which could lead to an early. humiliating exit.

I think Georgia are the dark, darkest of dark, horses for this tournament. I fancy them to tip over at least two if not all three of the top sides in this pool: Romania, Scotland and Argentina.

Frivolity aside, I remember in 2003 Georgia was in Ireland´s group and they nearly pulled off a big surprise.

To me Scotland has the best draw. They can sit back and observe the England Argentina game. They then get to play Argentina who will have had a lot taken out of them by England. Scotland must see the Argentina game as a must win. Then depending on how results go, they must also go for the win against England but they´ll have the luxury of knowing how many points they need to score to get through, providing they win against Argentina. If Argentina can cause an upset against England or Scotland and Scotland or England lose another, then they are in the box seat.

So a fascinating pool and there´s going to be some good forward clashes there. I expect England to come out on top and Argentina and Scotland have a great RWC record for going through to the quarters so one of them will go home disappointed. At the moment Scotland has the edge with their series win in Argentina. But that result counts for little else now this year.

damngoodovalball the good news is that Scotland haven't beaten England outside Scotland for over 20 years.

It's the tricky Scottish backrow which worries me the most.

If Scotland turn the match into an arm wrestle it could go either way.

To be fair on that point, Ireland turned up to the last WC horribly out of sorts. We gave you quite a beating in the warm-ups if I recall, especially your forwards. EOS made the mistake of resting too many players before the 2007 tournament, and the team was undercooked.

Hopefully Robinson can do a better job of preparing Scotland than O'Sullivan did with Ireland.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Third: England vs Scotland (last game of the pool; if both sides have already beaten Argentina, the incentive is to push for a win to avoid NZ in the quarters; becomes even more interesting if Argentina have beaten England)

I would say becomes even more interesting if France have beaten New Zealand! This may not be the likely outcome but it is certainly possible, and if Scotland and England have both beaten Argentina then we could find ourselves in a situation where the winner of the Scotland vs England game faces New Zealand and the loser faces France in the quarters!

Of course I would never suggest that either side would seek to throw the game, or even "rest players for the knock out stages", and for Scotland at least we love nothing more than beating the English if we can and tend to raise our game. But a potentially winnable quarter-final against France rather than one against New Zealand whom we have never beaten, might go some way to consoling me after a defeat!

biltongbek wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote: Against the slower attacking sides building slower phases rather than intensity, we've tended to be able to hold out, even under severe pressure (I'm thinking South Africa and England here).
.

Mate I don't agree with you. Perhaps when we play in Scotland you could term the Boks as the Frosen attacking side, hence there were 3 close games in the past decade, of which Scotland won 2.

Apart from that we beat Scotland fairly convincingly.

I was only referring to the last match where we won. Obviously historically you've had little issue beating us, I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is that last time we played you your approach was a slow phase game, kicking for territory and trying to press for errors. Against that sort of game plan, Scotland can hold out better, when the tempo goes up, we can struggle.

maestegmafia wrote:Pool B

Argentina (8) 78.97

England (5) 82.48

Georgia (15) 70.30

Romania (18) 65.57

Scotland (9) 77.35

England as Six Nations Champions have to be favourites for this Pool, they were the strongest team in the NH annual championship, but they struggled as the tournament wore on. Convincing wins over Wales and very convincing over Italy preceded a narrower win against France and less convincing win against Scotland and finally loss to ireland. They are promising but not the finished article. England should top this pool but they need convincing performances to get them started towards greater things later on in this tournament.

Scotland having beaten Argentina in Argentina twice leaving them as second favourites in this pool. Scotland are not the finished article either, strong in the pack though unconvincing behind, they have struggled to score tries. Look better with Jackson at flyhalf though, a decent inside center to partner Ansbro and they could be a good side easily underestimated.

Argentina were on great form in 07 but havent shown much of that since, missing star player like Hernandez they are not the force they were. They haven't shown the form they did going in to this tournament that they did in 07. I dont think we can expect a repeat this time.

Georgia are a new rising star in Europe's lower tiers, a strong forward orientated team. They caused former semi finalists in 07 Argentina problems at the last world cup holding them to 6-3 at half time. But have previously lost 83 - 0 to England. It is great that they are in the world cup again and hopefully give a better showing than last time, showing their improvements they were ranked 17th in 07 they are 15th now. Winners of the European nations cup since 2006 they are knocking on the door.

Romania, bottom seed in this pool but a former giant of the second tier of rugby, they almost beat the all blacks in the early eighties and have beeten a whole host of top tier nations in their illustrious past. They have never beaten England or Argentina but have beaten Scotland twice and Georgia 13 times. But all a long time in the past.

Cant really argue with this. Its Englands chance to blow qualification..yes teres two games they copuld lose, but even blwoing one of them would still leave them a good chance of second place. With Argentina and Scotland their peformances over the last few years have been really up and donw. Scotland were great a year ago, but the 6 nations was a poop. England plus one of those, Argentina Scotland is the key clash.
Whilst theres no really poor team in this group it would be a shock if Romania or Georgia troubled the big 3.

Pool B and Pool A Speculation simultaneously! Taking it to the next level Pat Mustard. If Wales can beat South Africa will teams be thinking as far ahead as the the semis and finals.

But you´re right. Whoever gets their noses out in front early in this group is in the driving seat. Lose and the pressure is right on.

Tough group and I don't believe Arg will be weak, they seem to peak at the right times and I remember watching there 3rd/4th team draw with the Lions in 2005, they like knock out rugby and they'll have another point to prove to world rugby (why aren't they in the 6nations or Tri nations by now is a disgrace)

England should top the group, but France should have beaten Italy in the 6Nations and Aus fans would have laughed at the thought of losing to Samoa in Sydney a week or so ago.

You never know, the developing nations players are bigger faster and fitter than they used to be, any team that is complacent will have to tread carefully this year.

Pat_Mustard wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Third: England vs Scotland (last game of the pool; if both sides have already beaten Argentina, the incentive is to push for a win to avoid NZ in the quarters; becomes even more interesting if Argentina have beaten England)

I would say becomes even more interesting if France have beaten New Zealand! This may not be the likely outcome but it is certainly possible, and if Scotland and England have both beaten Argentina then we could find ourselves in a situation where the winner of the Scotland vs England game faces New Zealand and the loser faces France in the quarters!

Of course I would never suggest that either side would seek to throw the game, or even "rest players for the knock out stages", and for Scotland at least we love nothing more than beating the English if we can and tend to raise our game. But a potentially winnable quarter-final against France rather than one against New Zealand whom we have never beaten, might go some way to consoling me after a defeat!

Pat, welcome, glad that you found us

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Pat_Mustard wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Third: England vs Scotland (last game of the pool; if both sides have already beaten Argentina, the incentive is to push for a win to avoid NZ in the quarters; becomes even more interesting if Argentina have beaten England)

I would say becomes even more interesting if France have beaten New Zealand! This may not be the likely outcome but it is certainly possible, and if Scotland and England have both beaten Argentina then we could find ourselves in a situation where the winner of the Scotland vs England game faces New Zealand and the loser faces France in the quarters!

Of course I would never suggest that either side would seek to throw the game, or even "rest players for the knock out stages", and for Scotland at least we love nothing more than beating the English if we can and tend to raise our game. But a potentially winnable quarter-final against France rather than one against New Zealand whom we have never beaten, might go some way to consoling me after a defeat!

Pat, welcome, glad that you found us

Thanks As, have been reading these boards since the old 606 closed, was never as regular a poster as you guys on the old one either but felt like joining in today!

Pat_Mustard wrote:Of course I would never suggest that either side would seek to throw the game, or even "rest players for the knock out stages", and for Scotland at least we love nothing more than beating the English if we can and tend to raise our game. But a potentially winnable quarter-final against France rather than one against New Zealand whom we have never beaten, might go some way to consoling me after a defeat!

I'd still want to wallop England in the group stages personally. Facing the All Blacks in the QFs would be a fantastic occasion, and a great opportunity to erase that thumping we received at Murrayfield last season. We didn't do ourselves justice on that day, and should relish another crack at them.

Imagine if Scotland beat New Zealand! Could it actually happen?

It would be the biggest upset in world rugby.

We don't have to beat them, we just have to fight them.

Why do teams fear the all blacks, they're not that good.

Why does Engalnd get a relatively easy pool compared with other sides? NZ has France and Aust have Ireland and Italy? Am I missing something?

beshocked wrote:Imagine if Scotland beat New Zealand! Could it actually happen?

It would be the biggest upset in world rugby.

Unfortunately, that is quite literally true.

Rob B wrote:Why does Engalnd get a relatively easy pool compared with other sides? NZ has France and Aust have Ireland and Italy? Am I missing something?

Yes you seem to be missing a rational objective apparaisal of the groups.

Firstly the pool seeding pots were decided on rankings a few years ago, and the DRAW made early for logistic reasons. England were a second pot seed, and Argentina a top pot seed at the time.

As it is now England have 3 of the top 9 sides in their group, Im not sure how that makes it easy. Yes theres no really good side,...but the third place side is the strongest one. So whilst its arguably an easy group to top its also an easy group to go out of.

New Zealand have France ..who are ranked below England, and then noone of note who shoudl troubel either. Whilst its hard for France to top the group they have a bye to the knockout stages. England have to beat at least one and to be certain both of Scotland and Argentina.
Australia and Ireland are tow highly ranked sides, but Italy are pretty weak. They are only a few ranking points ahead of Georgia who are the fourth see din Englands group.

Englands group is the one that a top 8 side is most likey to not make the quarter finals (last 8). Wales' group is tough also with a strongish 3rd and 4th pot team, but even Samoa are ranked a long way behind Scotland.

So in summary England dont have an easy group to qualify from, and they have that group because of a draw based on seedings.

damngoodOvalball wrote:Good, considered article maestegmafia. As an England fan my main concern in the group stages is Scotland. Outside of Twickenham they have a good record against us. I dont think we have won at Murrayfield since 2006. They do tend to raise the game for England matches as well. On paper I'd say that England have the edge, especially in the backs, but it isnt by enough to overcome my concerns.

Argentina are a lesser side than they were in 2007 based on their results since then, and the loss of several key players however I would never write them off.


People are mentioning that England should get ahead on points difference by racking up scores against Georgia and Romainia. I cant help but see this as a dangerous approach and possibly a tad arrogant considering how close Georgia came to beating Ireland 4 years ago.

Whilst I'm glad that we arent in a group as tough as Wales's, it will be no cakewalk for England. There are two very clear banana skins and one potential which could lead to an early. humiliating exit.

Scotland have raised their game against everyone bar Wales and New Zealand, beating Australia and South Africa in the last two seasons.

They will also have some good support, just look at how many Kiwis have "Mac or Mc" in their surname...!

The nerve of some people to suggest that England have an easy group.

There are no easy games Scotland will try and rub us up the wrong , Arg hate us (as do most teams) Georgia & Romania will both be hard games physically , plus throw some injuries into the mix!

But yes we will qualify as group winners and walk straight into the semi finals.

BATH_BTGOG, what about the quarter finals?

luckless_pedestrian wrote:BATH_BTGOG, what about the quarter finals?

We get a bye because everybody is picking on us.

maestegmafia wrote:They caused former semi finalists in 07 Argentina problems at the last world cup holding them to 6-3 at half time.

But they lost that game 30-3 didn't they? The score at half time is irrelevant. Plenty of sides play a deliberate wearing down game in the first half and reap the rewards in the second. That was how Wales won their 2008 Grand Slam wasn't it?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Rob B wrote:Why does Engalnd get a relatively easy pool compared with other sides? NZ has France and Aust have Ireland and Italy? Am I missing something?

Yes you seem to be missing a rational objective apparaisal of the groups.

Firstly the pool seeding pots were decided on rankings a few years ago, and the DRAW made early for logistic reasons. England were a second pot seed, and Argentina a top pot seed at the time.

As it is now England have 3 of the top 9 sides in their group, Im not sure how that makes it easy. Yes theres no really good side,...but the third place side is the strongest one. So whilst its arguably an easy group to top its also an easy group to go out of.

New Zealand have France ..who are ranked below England, and then noone of note who shoudl troubel either. Whilst its hard for France to top the group they have a bye to the knockout stages. England have to beat at least one and to be certain both of Scotland and Argentina.
Australia and Ireland are tow highly ranked sides, but Italy are pretty weak. They are only a few ranking points ahead of Georgia who are the fourth see din Englands group.

Englands group is the one that a top 8 side is most likey to not make the quarter finals (last 8). Wales' group is tough also with a strongish 3rd and 4th pot team, but even Samoa are ranked a long way behind Scotland.

So in summary England dont have an easy group to qualify from, and they have that group because of a draw based on seedings.

I guess it is the vagaries of ranking sides 3 years before the event as a lot can change in between. Essentially it looks pretty easy based on the current state of play. I'm sure Ireland would be happy to swap with England. I guess Engalnd would not be due to meet a SH side until the semi finals? That's a very nice draw if that is the case.

Don't get me wrong, whatever happens I will want to beat England, but if I could choose between NZ and France for the quarter final I'd pick France every time. I just dont see us having any chance at all of beating New Zealand and it could be another walkover. England would have a chance of beating them on a good day but we just seem totally outclassed every time we play them. We'd be underdogs against France too but at least a semi would be a possibility. Sorry if that seems pessimistic but thats how I see it! An ideal outcome for me would be a win over England, topping our group and France coming second in theirs. Even in the scenario I described I would want to beat England but a winnable quarter final would be a good consolation prize.

Rob B wrote: I'm sure Ireland would be happy to swap with England.

Forget it we've had enough of Argentina!

As an England supporter I must admit I don't know whether I would be happy finishing 2nd if France top their group and thus facing France rather than NZ, if it meant losing to Scotland.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:BATH_BTGOG, what about the quarter finals?

not worth mentioning! easy win for the men in White (or Black)

Rugby Uberlord wrote:As an England supporter I must admit I don't know whether I would be happy finishing 2nd if France top their group and thus facing France rather than NZ, if it meant losing to Scotland.

Ha, ha, quite right, you''d be hearing about it endlessly for the next 50 yrs!!

Head say's England will top the pool heart say's it's too close to call!

Still think IF Johnno tried out a new centre combi in warm ups we could be a much better team.

I don't think MJ will do much with the centres. I think the key to England coming good will be getting Ashton back onto some form. When his confidence is up and he's playing well, he adds a different dimension.

It'll be interesting to see who England use on the other wing. Cueto seems to have gone quite quite. I like Banahan there personally, but then a Hape, Tindall, Banahan combination looks a little one paced.