- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Before the 2007 Rugby World Cup (RWC07) started, the top 4 teams in the IRB’s rankings were New Zealand (1), Australia (2), France (3) and South Africa (4).
Given this and that France had the considerable advantage of hosting the tournament, which effectively elevates their world ranking, the projected semi-finals (SFs) of New Zealand vs Australia and France vs South Africa were reasonable.
Off the field England still comport themselves like world champions, but the on-field reality is that they have not played like world champions since 2003. Ireland’s chances were also talked up (how does Daniel Herbert feel now about his prediction in The Roar that Ireland would win the tournament?), but this was always far-fetched given that no Celtic nation has ever made a World Cup final, and the last time one even made a semi-final was Scotland in 1991. So again, it was reasonable to anticipate SFs of NZ-Aust and France-RSA.
What has changed since the tournament started? Really only one thing: France lost to Argentina in the opening match of the tournament. But unfortunately this has had an horrific effect on the draw for the knockout stages.
Simple maths dictates that 3 teams of the “big 5” of world rugby – New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, France and England – must end up on one side of the knockout draw at a World Cup. At RWC07 this was always going to be New Zealand, Australia and the loser of the England vs South Africa pool match, which was England.
The horrific effect of France’s loss to Argentina is that it has landed France on this “crowded” side of the draw, meaning that it consists entirely of big-5 teams.
In fact the situation is even worse than this, for France must immediately play New Zealand. Whatever one’s sentiments, one must acknowledge the argument of Jim Kayes of the Dominion Post, who has pointed out that this weekend the tournament will lose either its host (France) or the biggest “brand” in world rugby (New Zealand), and the event will be very much the poorer for this.
This said, one cannot help but experience Schadenfreude at France’s predicament. Ridiculously, they played IRB politics in order to win the hosting rights for RWC07, giving games to Wales and Scotland in exchange for their votes. Now the French are being hoist by their own petard, for they must travel to Cardiff to play in the quarter-final of the tournament they are “hosting”.
Meanwhile, in the other half of the draw, South Africa, Fiji, Argentina and Scotland will lock horns, a situation that virtually gifts South Africa a place in the final.
When one looks at this, one has to arrive at the curious conclusion that the Wallabies would have been better off losing to Wales and coming second in their group. Then they would be facing South Africa in the quarter-finals and most likely Argentina in the semis, a far easier route to the final than what confronts them on the other side of the draw as their “reward” for winning Pool B.
Making this situation even more intriguing is that the Wallabies should have foreseen it before they headed to Cardiff to face Wales. As already indicated, the miserable form of the Irish – evident even before the tournament in their loss to Scotland and their fortuitous win over Italy – and the opening-match defeat of France by Argentina made it odds-on from the opening night of RWC07 that the knockout draw would end up as it has.
Thus a reasonable but provocative question must be asked: should Australia have deliberately lost its match against Wales? Of course it is absurd to suggest such a course of action, but it is undeniable that the Wallabies would now be in a stronger position had they lost in Cardiff. In fact I can only see two arguments against this assessment:
1. Only once has a team lost a pool match at a World Cup and made the final, that being England in 1991, while never has a team lost a pool match and won the Cup. Thus the weight of history is against the radical proposal above. But some would say that history is bunk.
2. A respectable SF loss to NZ – what Australia perhaps faces – would still be regarded as a reasonably successful WC campaign, whereas a QF loss to South Africa would be considered a disastrous campaign, as in 1995. So the suggestion above would have been a riskier approach. But sometimes one needs to take risks in order to succeed. Further, Australia still faces the real risk of a QF departure at the hands of England, who are a different team when their golden boy is playing at 10.
Where does all this leave the outcome of RWC07? Many are interpreting South Africa’s rails run to the final as a reason to back them. For the following reason I question this line of thought.
In tennis grand slams the situation of RWC07 frequently arises, i.e., one half of the draw being much tougher than the other. When this is the case, the winner usually emerges from the tougher half.
A good case in point is the recent US Open, where Justine Henin had to beat Serena (QF) and then Venus Williams (SF) before reaching the final. There she met Svetlana Kuznetsova, who had faced no real opposition in her QF (Agnes Szavay) and SF (Anna Chakvetadze). Henin duly romped to victory in the final, with a much easier win than in the matches she had faced to get there.
Certainly a team winning RWC07 from the tough side of the draw will be a worthy champion. For example, New Zealand will most likely have to beat France, Australia and South Africa to claim the title, while for Australia the likely path reads England, New Zealand and South Africa.
It is not too hard to imagine the All Blacks or Australia doing a Henin and having a comfortable victory over South Africa in a final for which they are better prepared via tougher matches to get there.
But which of New Zealand (more likely) or Australia will be Henin?
=========
Greg Russell is a columnist with The Roar.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.