By Darren Walton
December 2nd 2008 @ 1:57am
View The Roar's top rugby union writers.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, let us know and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Love new art, fashion, music? Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
Australia in dream Rugby World Cup draw
The Wallabies have received the best draw imaginable for the 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand. If results go according to seedings during the pool stages of the tournament, the Wallabies cannot run into the defending champion Springboks or the top-ranked All Blacks until the final.
In addition to landing on the opposite side of [...]
This article is over 2000 days old and has been trimmed.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(29)
Dublin Dave said | December 2nd 2008 @ 5:14am | Report comment
Bring ‘em on!!!!!
It’s ridiculous to make predictions about how teams will be two years from now as there is no guarantee that the current seedings will reflect the relative strengths in 2009. It could be that Australia will have a tough time of it.
In the qualifying round, Australia will have to play Ireland for the fifth time in a World Cup but for the first time on neutral territory. This is a side that has beaten Australia twice in the last six years and who have been known to give them a hard time in World Cups. Although Australia have won all four cup ties up to now, two of them (Dublin 91 and Melbourne 03) have been by the squeakiest margin possible: a single point. The other two, in Sydey in 87 and Dublin 99, Australia won quite easily.
Even assuming they win the group, Australia will most likely have to play either England or France. In World Cups, they have played France twice with one win and one loss. Against England, they have played three World Cup ties since their victory in the 1991 final (won thanks to a blatant deliberate knock on by Campese that should have been a penalty try, and would have been a sin binning if it had been invented back then) and have lost all of them, in the quarter finals of 1995 and 2007 and the final of 2003.
If they finish runner up in their group, they will most likely have to play South Africa but what are the chances of them finishing third? Given Ireland’s record against them a victory on neutral soil would not be an outlandish result and as for the Italians: well, they don’t have a lot of strength in depth, particularly in the backs but boy, can they scrummage!!!
Be afraid, Australia. Be very afraid!!!!!!!
Dublin Dave said | December 2nd 2008 @ 5:15am | Report comment
Sorry, that should have been 2011 in the second line
sheek said | December 2nd 2008 @ 6:42am | Report comment
This is daft. Selecting the pools 3 years out makes no sense to me at all. But then again, the RWC is named after a man who most likely never did what he was purported to do.
LeftArmSpinner said | December 2nd 2008 @ 6:50am | Report comment
Darren, While I agree with your method of predicting performances, and your analysis that Australia has an easy path, I disagree with your conclusion.
RWC’s are a unique tournament. They are won by teams that are able to string together wins and harden as the contest rolls on.
The Wallabies easy path will see them having not played enough hard rugby except for Wales in the Quarters. The only hope for hard rugby for Australia is if Wales continue to maintain and improve their current game. On current form, it will be a tough game and one to steel the winner, for the tougher games ahead.
Having said that, prior to the RWC 2011, Australia will benefit from being in the Tri-Nations tournament with the two best teams in the world and being at the end of their season rather than at the start like the NH.
On balance, I dont think we have been served well by the draw!
Mart said | December 2nd 2008 @ 6:51am | Report comment
Sheek – 100% agree. Why do that ? Utterly daft. By the time you get to 2011 a whole heap of stuff will have changed. Having said that this is the first time for a few RWCs that I’m actually excited by a RWC draw for the pool stages, some potentially great games there. The last RWC showed us the idiocy of trying to predict seeds progressing ‘as planned’ but I note most of the Aus media are suggesting this is a dream draw for Aus (relatively easy pool and no 3N oppo till final if all goes as expected, ha ha). I suspect Eng will be fairly pleased to have dodged a few bullets in their pool selection too (given who they could have faced) ? Should the Eng / Argy pooll game be played on the Falklands (only kiddin’ !) ? Pool D already looks a ripper !
Nick (KIA) said | December 2nd 2008 @ 7:35am | Report comment
LAS,
The needing hard games to win the thing is supported by the ABs performance last time (although that was partly their own making due to excessive rotation), but refuted by SA actually winning the thing – they had a soft pool, easy QF (Fiji) and relatively easy Semi (Argentina), and still had enough gas in the tank to win the final – although it should be noted that only one of the teams they had to beat (Arge) are ranked in top 4 a year later.
I think ABs will be fairly happy with their draw – they get their bogey team France in a non-sudden death situation, and then wouldn’t have to play them again unless they manage to win their way through to the final (assuming both sides made it that far – unlikely on prior form).
Agree is madness to be making the draw this far out. The excuse is needing to give NZ sufficient time to allocate bases and sort out who’s staying where etc – but you could do all this before the draw was made, IMHO. But it’s a (slight) improvement on the prior practice of using places teams finished last time. At least the pools look relatively even based on current form.
Mick of Newie said | December 2nd 2008 @ 7:45am | Report comment
Which group is “the group of death?”
I would like to see the odds on the top 2 seeds coming out of each group. Just goes to show how farciful this tournament is. It takes over a month of play to determine the top two teams in each group and in those groups of 10 games played at best 2 games will be genuine contests that might have a bearing on the outcome of the tournament.
Give the mungos their dues, at least they came up with a world cup format that recognised the disparity between the pros and the amateurs.
Millster said | December 2nd 2008 @ 8:38am | Report comment
France V All Blacks…. again.
With a huge smile on my face inspired by 1999 and 2007, I’ll be shouting “ALLEZ LES BLEUS” until I am hoarse.
Nick (KIA) said | December 2nd 2008 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Yes, but as I pointed out, won’t be sudden death this time. Suspect that brings the best out of the French.
stuff happens said | December 2nd 2008 @ 8:42am | Report comment
I agree with LAS, my observation of RWCs is that being in an ‘easy’ group is no benefit at all. If you hope to progress to the 1/4s and beyond you will have to beat some of the best teams – so good luck and get on with it!
The other factor of course is that at least one seeded team will underperform and at least one minnow will surprise us all – which is the beauty of the RWC.
sheek said | December 2nd 2008 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Dublin Dave,
Assuming the world cup was being held in your original typo mistake year – 2009 – yes, Australia should be very afraid.
But as you know, a lot can change in 3 years. By 2011, other countries might have reason to be very afraid of the Wallabies!
True Tah said | December 2nd 2008 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Mick
the pools of death would have to be B and D.
D – Fiji beat Wales in 2007, and were a JP Pieterson tackle away from beating the Boks in the quarter final. Samoa are likely to be in that pool as well, and Samoa have got a record of beating Wales at World Cups as well…having said that Wales just beat Australia, if they can keep the nucleus of team together for the next 3 years, then they could well be a contender, the last time they played a world cup in NZ, they beat Australia.
B – Argentina, England and Scotland, recently their records are fairly even, plus we have the possibility of Georgia being Europe 1 (they are currently the highest ranked European nation outside the 6 Nations) – they went close to beating the Irish in 2007, whos to say they might not improve and beat the Scots.
I dont agree with it being a farcical tournament at all, I personally wouldnt want to front up to the Georgian or Tongan or Samoan sides and tell them that they’re in a farce of a tournament, but hey, you might be a huge bloke who would delight in doing so.
Ben said | December 2nd 2008 @ 10:37am | Report comment
so we’ll be knocked out in the qtr finals – this time by Wales. Haven’t we just lost a game to them we really should have won??
I’m not so sure it’s such an easy ride, dont you want hard games going into the final (assuming the Wallabies make it that far).
James Mortimer said | December 2nd 2008 @ 11:38am | Report comment
These comments are of course based on current form……
Completely disagree with the article.
I think the Wallabies are in a pool of death.
Ireland and Italy are both danger teams for Australia.
I think the point forgotten is that the Wallabies are the team least likely to have support in New Zealand – so of all nations will recieve a very hostile reception (as the are the Blacks biggest danger).
If the Wallabies then have to play Wales in the quarters, well, I predict that they will struggle to get past. Of course, if they come runner up in their pool, then they will play the Boks in the quarters.
The Blacks will be happy to get France out of the way – without the mentality of a sudden death game, they should easily account for them on their home soil. They will also enjoy a touch match before the finals.
ohtani's jacket said | December 2nd 2008 @ 11:58am | Report comment
I also think the All Blacks would prefer tougher pool games rather than having to think about the tougher games ahead. No matter how the pool stages play out, the knockout stages will be tough. If Australia think they have a clear run through to the final, they’re dreaming.
Mick of Newie said | December 2nd 2008 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
True Tah
Just because Tonga, Georgia and Samoa have big blokes who would make a mess of me does not save this tournament. The RWC is too long and too predictable, too many dead rubbers and not enough games involving the top sides playing each other. The group stage is a full month with zero tension. The only tournament that approaches the RWC for its capacity to destroy tension is the cricket world cup. My tip for any such organiser is that if you can’t knock it over in 3 or 4 weeks try again. Sitting through this tournament is only for the true believers.
Why not play a straight knock out with a plate and shield for the lesser lights. knocks about 3 weeks off your tournament. Pre qualify 8 teams to play 8 seeded teams. Round of 16 seeded. After that draw matches from a hat. that would spice things up.
ohtani's jacket said | December 2nd 2008 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
Last time the group stages were more exciting than the semi-finals onwards.
Recidivist said | December 2nd 2008 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
OJ, the Wallabies won’t be making the Ab’s mistake of thinking they have an easy run through to the final.
The AB’s have been the best team in the world almost every year since 1987 when they won their only world cup.
Being married to a Kiwi I can already picture the family tears when France knock off the AB’s…
ohtani's jacket said | December 2nd 2008 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
If France beat New Zealand, then NZ will likely go through to the other side of the draw, and that means a NZ vs. Australia semi-final at Eden Park.
sheek said | December 2nd 2008 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Go to your history Guys. Tough pool games better prepare a team for the knock-out stage. Also, England made two RWC finals (1991 & 2007) after losing a pool game.
And it’s ridiculous projecting 2011 results on 2008 form (not to mention selecting pools 3 years out). Get back to work, you lazy lot!!!
ohtani's jacket said | December 2nd 2008 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
Someone has to ensure that sides play their strongest team in the pool stages. France vs. New Zealand sounds like an exciting opening game, but if France decide to rest guys if the latter pool games….
Andrew Jones said | December 2nd 2008 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
Let’s hope for a Wallabies v. All Blacks final, with Dingo’s boys prevailing!
ohtani's jacket said | December 2nd 2008 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
His former boys or latter day boys?
Sam Taulelei said | December 2nd 2008 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
From a sportsfans point of view I’d love each pool to be a pool of death, with tough absorbing games that capture the imagination of the public. Every tournament has to have a pool of death whether real or imagined so that the promoters and marketers have something to sell.
I was hoping that another one of the six nations teams would also be drawn into the same pool as NZ. Our previous best performance was in 1995 when we played Ireland, Wales, Japan before meeting Scotland in the quarterfinals, England in the semis and the Boks in the final. I agree with Nick and James, harder pool games prepares NZ better for the knockout stages.
Ireland must be getting sick and tired of meeting the Wallabies at a world cup, the same way Scotland must be tired of meeting the All Blacks.
Mick of Newie said | December 2nd 2008 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Maybe the group stage is at the wrong end of the tournament. How about a knockout to come up with a top 4 or 6. Then a pool to come up with the two finalists.
ohtani's jacket said | December 2nd 2008 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
If they really wanted to make them pools of death they’d skip the quarterfinals altogether, but that would lose a tremendous amount of revenue. Realistically we don’t know at this stage what the most difficult pool will be. They seem fairly balanced at the moment, which could actually be a good thing.
Arky said | December 2nd 2008 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
A lot can change in three years – pick any three years you like out of the last twenty….only constant is change!
Sluggy said | December 2nd 2008 @ 11:14pm | Report comment
The pool with Engalnd, Argentina and Scotland looks like the pool of death, even though form will alter over the next 3 years – the runner up has a likely QF against the ABs.
Colin N said | December 3rd 2008 @ 1:12am | Report comment
As an England fan, I am delighted with the draw. Ok, we may have the toughest third seed in Scotland but we have missed the ‘big three.’ I’m not going to predict how Argentina will do because they’re at a similar stage to us in rebuilding but will they challenge like they did in 07, with the way their current structure is?
I therefore think we have a better chance to finish top of the pool and originally thought this is a good thing. I then realised who we would be likely to play in the quarters and found out it was France and basically thought ‘Oh s**t.’
However, I still fee we have a better chance of beating France than New Zealand, if we get there of ourse.