Would Australia have been better off losing to Wales?

[...] in which so much history repeated itself, it seems appropriate that I reprise the heading of my article of last [...]

The nub of this discussion is actually about the number of countries participating in the next world cup and what should be the optimum. However patronisingly some people might look at the romance of countries like Portugal "playing" countries like New Zealand, the fact of the matter is that countries who think they have a chance of progressing will relegate romance to the back burner and eschew the glamour of dying gloriously in matches they are never going to win in favour of husbanding their resources for proper "matches", ie contests between participants with some claim to be equals. Scotland did it against New Zealand and have been slagged off for it. Fiji did it against Australia and seem to have escaped similar censure. Groups of five teams from which two emerge are cumbersome and dificult to manage over a self-contained tournament. Scheduling is a nightmare, and one that is usually resolved by discriminating against the weaker teams anyway. They are told, you're never going to beat the big guys anyway so there is no real disadvantage to anyone asking you to play two games in four days. Also, there are matches that teams can quite reasonably say they can afford to lose as long as they make sure they win the vital ones. If groups were reduced to four teams and if the real minnows were excluded then it would be difficult to give up on every match. You couldn't rely on all the other teams in your group to achieve the expected results. You would more or less have to contest every match, just in case. Once you accept that units of four are the way to go, you then have a choice of overall numbers. Do we make it an 8-team tournament (like the Soccer Euro championship used to be) a 16 team tournament (like euro soccer now is and soccer world cup used to be) or do we go to the next level and make it a 32 team tournament, like World Cup soccer now is. 20 or 24 team tournaments are over cumbersome and tend to produce a lot of superfluous matches in any sport. If the choice for the next world cup was between 16 and 32 countries (even disregardign the capability of the host country's infrastructure to cope with the influx of visitors) it would crystallise things clearly.

Great analysis but to answer your question [which you can't have been asking in all seriousness] NO! Australia have been behind the 8 ball since the last RWC [maybe even before that!]. Their preparation has been disastrous and their form not much better. They will bank on 2 things- momentum and spirit. Losing any game would be at odds with the creation of both of these things. More than any other team in the world [and probably across all sports] they pride themselves on the competition. They're born competitors. Every play is a challenge and every player is accountable and because of this on their day they can beat anyone. Granted if the anyone is a rampaging NZ then they're no chance but they'll never ever acknowledge that and nor should they. Besides all that, the match against Wales was the shining light for the Wallabies. They were spirited and skillful and if they do progress further it will be because of that win. r

Ulysses You are right mate, we are hanging out for the AB/Wallaby semi and what a joy it will be to remind George "l'escagot" Gregan of a certain comment from four years ago. It's not nerves my friend, it's excitement. The past is just that, it's the past. Learn from it, sure, and implement the lessons. Forget '99 and '03, the 2007 AB's are a different team, different preparation and will achieve a different result.

Ulysses I think Spiro has already answered this question in another post. The deal France made with Wales, Scotland and Ireland wasn't necessary as England won fewer votes for their bid than what France needed to win, even with the Celts in their back pocket. The English bid was considered too radical at the time but ironically is what many people are arguing is what is needed at the next world cup by running another competition in parallel for the lesser teams.

In agreeance with many previous posts on this topic I too would argue that the loss by France to Argentina while horrific for the hosts has been "terrific" for the tournament. One of the criticisms about the rugby world cup has been the lack of any real surprises or upsets to the world pecking order in comparison to the football world cup (which ignores the fact that the FIFA world cup has only been won by 7 different countries since its inception in 1930 - compared to 4 in the RWC since 1987, and featured 9 different countries in the final) but I digress. Greg your article while well written conveniently ignores the impact and affect any loss would have for any team. Putting aside the disappointment, coaches would need to reassess their selections, tactics, preparation (physically and mentally), manage any injuries let alone dealing with the added pressure of ill affording another loss (see Ireland) and dealing with the fallout from the media and fans. I can assure you that if you spoke directly with any Wallaby and asked them if they would be better off losing to Wales to increase their chances of winning the cup they would look at you quizzically and answer no comment before walking away. The best chance any team has of winning any tournament is to win all their games, that way destiny lies in their own hands and not anybody else's.

Matty makes a good point about the French deal to get the RWC. If they hadn't done the deal with Wales, Scotland - would they have still won the right to hold it? That's what no-one ever comments on. Presumably not - otherwise why would they have done it.... And so the RWC would have been in England - anyone keen on that? Now you might bemoan the fact they HAD to do a deal to get it - fair enough - but it was reality, they did the deal, got the cup, and from all accounts it is pretty marvelous to be in France! Better sure if it was ALL there, but that wasn't the option on the table for them. So I think it is a bit hard to criticise the French. Better to criticise the Welsh and Scots for not making a valid decision about what was best for the RWC, rather than looking for their own narrow interests.

Ross and Greg, The Wallabies and the AB's have both had an easy run in the pool stages, you talk about the Aussies on a good day but NZ on a average day can beat Aus on a good day and so with the Boks. All this talk about losing and what ifs and what nots is a load of bollocks. Aus is not the best team in this RWC not even second, if the bookies have you at 3 then that’s where you are. I love Aus and think they are a great rugby team but the fans often get lost in or blinded by faith. The Wallabies need to get past England first (it wont be as easy as most of you make it). England is a tough match and we have seen crucial players in the Wallaby squad get injured already, with 2 more big matches chances are they will have more. The only team that has a clear chance of winning is NZ that’s why they are the favorites. South Africa had a tough pool and now enjoying a good run to the finals but have to make way past the argies who have managed to upset everyone so far. Just like France gave away games to other countries to secure the vote now end up playing QF away so would the Wallabies have lost to a much stronger Bok team had the lost against Wales to take the easy path.

The argies aren't a fluke mate. This has been coming for a long time and some have just been to blind to see it. I have my money on the argies rolling South Africa. I'm with Switfy and Dave on this one. As for throwing a game, Josh has it covered (you're ex Tas Uni, right Josh)? We want to win the cup back. To do that we have to win. Bring 'em all on. If we fail, we fail, that is sport, that is competition, c'est la vie. Better to have tried and failed... I'd hate to be tarred with the same flack that I am dishing out to my Scottish mates now - may as well have played the game in France if you are going to capitulate under threat of a strong opposition... Which brings me to the assertion that France was "ridiculous" in doing a deal with Wales and France. Poppycock. They played realpolitik, as has every other host of the RWC since its inception, in winning the right to be host the games. It is a shame that the RFU works that way, but that's the system, the French worked it to get the best result they could. And the opportunity to play away from Stade de France, where they have a crap record, may actually work to their advantage.

Great Article Greg. However, I think that for the Wallabies, position in the draw doesn't really matter. I think it's purely down to strength of mental character. The Aussies can beat anyone on their day, and - other than the All Blacks - have been the only team who have looked like potential tournament winners. No matter who they face from here on in, I genuinely think they have a very good chance.

You must have used an enormous amount of mental energy writing that piece Greg. Now, I love my rugby and have done so for many years, but you had my head spinning there man. Tennis, Rugby, Anna Chakvetadze and Schadenfreude all in the one article. Bravo! Let me just say this. To win a tournament at any level you have to win matches. The KISS method works on so many levels here. Win all your matches and quess what? You've just won the World Cup. Bravo!

Another reason the Aussies couldnt have been sure about the consequences of losing to Wales was that France could still have won its group if Ireland had gone on to beat Argentina and beat Georgia by a bigger margin - both far from implausible on pre-World Cup form. So you end up chasing your tail in those circumstances. Even assuming that France/NZ was a cert, another question would be - how do you do it without raising an unholy stink- - indeed, does the IRB have any power to take action of some kind? I guess you could always put on a complete B team, which would probably struggle to beat Wales anyway, and wouldnt require much pretense. Would be a lot cleaner to try to flog them, and then ease up until they caught up - but that raises all the controversy consequences. Not a bad idea, though, if only to make it harder for Boks to make the final - though dont discount the Argies. But dont take historical reasons seriously - such as no-one ever winning the Cup without winning their pool - thats because good teams dont have too much trouble winning their pools, and usually try to. Another furphy is AB's semfinal hoodoo -a country that goes in as 6/4 on favourites or better to win a match is not going to keep getting beaten, so you'd have to feel pretty sure about them this time. Though if they lose in the semis this time, maybe I'll believe there is a hoodoo!

Another reason the Aussies couldnt have been sure about the consequences of losing to Wales was that France could still have won its group if Ireland had gone on to beat Argentina and beat Georgia by a bigger margin - both far from implausible on pre-World Cup form. So you end up chasing your tail in those circumstances. Even assuming that France/NZ was a cert, another question would be - how do you do it without raising an unholy stink- - indeed, does the IRB have any power to take action of some kind? I guess you could always put on a complete B team, which would probably struggle to beat Wales anyway, and wouldnt require much pretense. Would be a lot cleaner to try to flog them, and then ease up until they caught up - but that raises all the controversy consequences. Not a bad idea, though, if only to make it harder for Boks to make the final - though dont discount Argies.

Can't assume NZ beats France. Don't care where they are playing. Jools-USA;

I couldn't agree more with the sentiment that the toughest path to the final is the most admirable and worthy. For all of the ABs past demons if they get past France, Australia and South Africa/Argnentina in consecutive weeks (in other words beating 5,2,3/4 in the world) who could deny them as being deserving champs? Even if the Wallabies get done by the ABs in the semi, it'll be a game which everyone will be desperate to see and on neutral territory you've got to say the Wallabiles are are aneven money bet. Bring on the real games and good luck to all the nations involved (except Scotland who of course need the luck of the Irish and the rest of the know world to be more thana car crash waiting to happen).

mudskipper - I like your thinking! Goes back to a comment Nick Farr Jones made over a year ago when the draw became clear and a Aus-NZ S/F probable - there'll be lots of Kiwis having a very nervous night, staring at the ceiling, waiting for kickoff against the Wallabies!

Greg I appreciate the point but have to disagree. Something turns sour in the mind of a team which loses on purpose. It opens up a can of ugly possibilities. Hanse Cronje...need I say more? Every step of the RWC proves mental toughness. There is no mental toughness involved in losing on purpose, and if one did, how would Australia muster the self-belief to take on the AB's. The other thing, Greg, is that you are focussed on what will happen when we lose in the QF v SF. The Wallabies believe in winning, not losing. No other mental approach is acceptable. Josh.

Contemplate this scenario the Wallabies will beat England without two much trouble. The All Blacks have had an extremely soft pool and are not big game savvy yet. Under prepared against a top 4 side and will play France then the Wallabies the following week. The French have a lot of pride to play for and may loose but will leave the ABS physical exhausted. The All Blacks when have to travel back to France, loosing a day to make camp. The ABs will be tender, edgy and on ice. What an unfortunate platform for the All Blacks to meet their nemesis the Wallabies. The team they last lost too. The Wallabies will be ready to meet the ABs with or without Larkham. The ABs fear Larkham’s game but Barnes is an unknown to them and may prove to be hard to manage on the field. The Wallabies know their game and will not play to their strengths. For the Wallabies to win it needs to be a dry game, if it rains ABs are the likely winners. Emotion will be plentiful for 8-10 of the All Blacks it will be their last game against the Wallabies and possibility of their last game in their loved All Black jersey and the chance to will the RWC because they have signed lucrative Northern hemisphere contacts. I must agree if any team from this side of the draw wins the tournament they are truly worthy, of RWC Championship. The Boks seem over confident and are not playing at their best and I can’t see them winning the RWC. After this weekend it will most likely be only Southern hemisphere teams in a Northern hemisphere RWC. A big Congratulations to Fiji. 'Go The Wallabies'

Gregg, With all due respect, and in the nicest possible way: get over yourself, man. This situation has arisen because a team (Argentina) played better than people expected and got a result, not just a performance, against France that few foresaw. You should celebrate that as a rattling of the confidence of the old order. Not describe its consequences as "horrific" and "leaving the tournament poorer". It is just this sort of attitude from supporters of the big countries ("How dare these upstarts win matches they're not supposed to! " ) that makes people rejoice when they lose. How were Australia to know when they played Wales how Group D would turn out? When the last match in that group kicked off any one of the three top teams could, in theory, have ended up playing in Cardiff. And do you really think that S AFrica is an easier ask at Q Final stage than England? I don't think so. Not that I think Australia are certainties to beat England. On the contrary, England playing with a little confidence could prove to be quite a handful.

Greg, I think you under-rate the Argentineans. South Africa's victory is not assured against them. Using your own logic the Sarfies had a much easier run to the QF than Argentina did so Argentina should win.