Is history set to repeat itself at the RWC?

Interesting debate. I am a passionate AB supporter, but get squirmy thinking that this WC is in the bag. I get nervous of the French game for instance. Werent they rubbish just before the last 2 WC's? Even Graham Henry noticed that England only have a good team in WC year! I am most concerned about SA. last year we beat them but they werent easy games and they were without Brussow, Du Preez & Bimarck, plus they seem to have more depth in each position to cover those "old" players. I will be suprised if we can win the TN this year, let alone the WC...but I prey hard.

Some interesting 6N stats for you, B-Rock, taken from the four games prior to today's games: Kicks from hand per match: France 18, Italy 19, England 20.75, Scotland 26.5, Ireland 26.75, Wales 29.75; Passes pm: England 170, Scotland 149.5, France 145.5, Ireland 139.5, Italy 136.25, Wales 119.5; Runs pm: England 134, France 114.5, Italy 113, Scotland 110.25, Ireland 110, Wales 106.75; Clean breaks pm: England 11, France 7.25, Wales 5, Ireland 4.75, Scotland 3.25, Italy 2.5; Off-loads pm: England 15.25, Scotland 12.25, France 10, Ireland 8.5, Italy 8, Wales 8. Are England a team reliant on forward play and field possession?

At the end of year tours the SH sides have been in camp for months and have just come off the 3N. At the end of year tours the NH sides have been in camp for a week or two and have not played Test rugby in months. At the WC the SH sides have been in camp for months and have just come off the 3N. At the WC the NH sides have been in camp for a month (or maybe longer) and will have played three warm-up Tests. The difference?

pothale end of year tours are when the SH teams are at their weakest and they still manage to do very well against NH opposition. At the world cup the SH teams would be at their best and on neutral ground/home ground. That being said u cant write off teams like eng and france. I just dont think wales,scotland or even ireland are gonna have the fire power to cause upsets to quality SH opposition.

IMO England have been clearly the best team of the 6N and are the NH's best chance in sept. I also agree with Ben that they have improvement in them when moody and lawes return. However I do think the location will work against England psychologically. In 2003 they had managed at least one twickenham victory against NZ in recent times and also one victory on a NZ tour. This time around, if they face nz in nz without a victory against them home or away for a decade my guess is it gives nz more motivation to not let that happen.

Let me just add something on to the first paragraph. Whilst lower quality teams might drag the game down in a one-off game, the better quality teams tend to raise the quality of a game, or at least IMO the quality of the NH sides. If you ignore England's recent performances against Australia they also (aside from an initial 20 minute lapse in concentration) played well against New Zealand. Once Wales had some of their better players back look how they played against SA, in fact look at how Wales have played against SA for the past few seasons. Look at how Ireland went against NZ in November. Better skilled opponents bring the best out of you, as we also saw during the Lions Tests.

agree nick. brian are you being serious or just patriotic? I am an AB fan but i certainly don't 'struggle' to see the ABs lose a semi to sth africa.

'If England were to be considered a real threat at the world cup they should still put them away in more convincing fashion.' Again, we come back to the same point which is that World Cup rugby is a totally different animal to all other rugby. You wouldn't write off the Springboks based on their recent poor performances, and neither would I write England off on the basis of the 6N. By and large, when you played lesser quality teams they drag the game into a wrestle, which is probably why we have seen South Africa and Australia struggle on their recent European tours. 'Not sure how a dry track helps a forward dominated team which relies on field position and goal kicking' Is this your description of England, B-Rock? 'I think most (maybe just in Aus) see this as a very below par performance for the WBs and the best England have played for some time, not a general reflection of where the sides are at' My perspective would be that Australia didn't play badly, they were simply out thought and out fought on both occasions. For example, Quade Cooper was targeted by Easter and Hape, Drew Mitchell was targeted defensively, the re-starts were targeted... If you look at the try that Ben Youngs scored in Australia, the England coaching staff noticed that Mumm used to step in leaving space between the lifters. I don't think this was a case of one side not turning up. If two sides want to throw the ball around then the winner will be the side who is better technically and physically. Were Australia able to reference more than a blowout performance against France as an illustration of any tangible development over the past few seasons then I might lean more towards what you are suggesting. By the time the SH comes to town they will have been in camp for months, and finished what is the shortest rugby season in the world. They are also the best ranked sides in the world and will be coming up against the lower ranked sides who are just starting their season. To compare that to when the French, for example, tour at the end of their 50 week rugby season isn't apt IMHO. Now that the English EPS agreement has been about for two or three seasons, maybe, but previously winning down under was never a realistic option. Sure, I'd generalise the SH as Arg/SA and Aus/NZ. No need to apologise, B-Rock. I think I need a lie down now...

Ben S - as I said above, the one thing that increases the credibility of a grand slam for England is that Ireland Scotland and Wales get more fired up against England than any other team. This was a (rather poor) way of saying that the games mean much more between Scotland-England than Scotland-Aus or Wales-NZ. Absolutely agree that the history between these countries contributes to the closeness of these games. But the fact is these teams are just not very good. If England were to be considered a real threat at the world cup they should still put them away in more convincing fashion. Not sure how a dry track helps a forward dominated team which relies on field position and goal kicking (outside of the back 3 on a good day). Yes they sometimes have the intent to play an open style, but is that the best way to beat Aus and NZ, which IMO have a significant advantage in this area. Im sure you will reference the WBs loss to England on the spring tour - that was a case of teh WBs being completely outplayed. I think most (maybe just in Aus) see this as a very below par performance for the WBs and the best England have played for some time, not a general reflection of where the sides are at. With all due respect, to say it is no more difficult to win a grand slam on the other side of the world at the end of a long season in very different conditions to what is experienced throughout the season compared to having half these matches at home and greater familiarity with the opposition and conditions is difficult to fathom. Yes NZ has done it several times, because they are the best side in the world by some distance. I would compare it to the NH teams coming to NZ, AUS and SA and winning all three games - wouldnt happen very often (Prob only Clives England team prior to the WC in the past 10yrs). Plus the grand slam is contested every year in the NH whereas only occasionally by SH teams, so fewer opportunities to win it. Finally, my appologies for gross generalisations of SH/NH rugby - this is a shorthand reference rather than applying the same style to all teams on each side of the equator. Clearly, differences exist between the styles played by ARG/SA and AUS/NZ (am I right to say these are broadly similar?)

Thanks PH what a great year for rugby and I hope NZ and Japan are able to get something out of it. Best wishes to all, even living in Brisbane and having some family in Christchurch brings home the importance that rugby is a game and if managed well can bring a ray of hope in some peoples lives.

Geoff Brisbane said | Yesterday | Report comment A long way to go yet, I think if you compare the English wins to date v Ireland, France, Wales etc and compare them with the SHemisphere recent tours what type of picture does that give??? ________________________ In comparing the 6 SH teams vs the 6 NH teams, I suspect England have had more wins against Australia and South Africa than they've had against Ireland in the 6N in the last ten years. And that Ireland have had more wins against South Africa than they've had against France in the last ten years. And France probably have lost to England more than they've lost to South Africa in the same period. Fiji have lost to England, France and Ireland consistently. Ditto Samoa. Argentina had a boost around the time of the 2007 WC but their tours in the NH against England, Ireland and France have been somewhat ill-starred in recent years. The only team that has a stellar record is New Zealand. That's the clear picture. And England have turned up in enough knock-out phases and finals in the WC not to be discounted. Ever.

All due respect, but I don't think you understand the 6N, B-Rock. In fact I don't think many SH fans do.The tradition of a Calcutta match, for example, isn't simply a case of a high ranked team (England) playing a low ranked team (Scotland) like games might be in the Autumn. Equally, England travelling to Cardiff isn't simply Wales v England. To many Welsh fans it is the only game that matches the All Blacks in terms of cultural significance. Look at Lievremont's antics prior to Le Crunch. Playing at a neutral ground against anybody is a different kettle of fish, as every single WC has proven to date. I'd argue that a fast track would suit England. For some reason the Wallabies have now been left surprised the past two times they've met as to what brand of rugby England seek to play. If you watch England regularly then you know they can play, and you know they want to play. The same can be applied to Ireland. Both sides lost to the Springboks because they tried to play too much rugby, for example. Also, if your'e going to use the hemisphere stereoytpes then no, IMO a fast track won't suit the SH, because the SH contains South Africa. The SH also contains Argentina. Australian backplay only improved with the arrival of Kurtley Beale, so it's not like the SH has been leading the way en masse in terms of Harlem Globetrotter rugby. For me the only side capable of consistently excellent wide and fast play is NZ. I also don't think winning a Grand Slam should be that difficult for a SH side. By the time of the autumn internationals they will have been in camp for months and at the end of the shortest provincial competition in the world. NZ have managed to complete them with ease. That Australia and SA haven't suggests to me that there isn't a huge gulf between various sides. I'm not that fussed about injuries re: excuses for bad performances. It's a part of rugby, as you say, but England already had the least experienced Test side in world rugby, and then they had to introduce Corbiseiro and Wood into the side, and play Deacon at 4 and Haskell at 7. This not only affected their style of play (Deacon is a completely different type of player to Lawes), but it meant that they basically had to start from scratch again. IMO that makes their 6N results that much more impressive. They have found ways to win. That isn't to say that I'm beating my chest about England's performances to date (quite the opposite - we've made far too many errors), but I like the way the team has rallied and got on with the job in hand with no hyperbole. The other sides have regressed, I agree, but I don't think their regression has any relevance to England. I honestly believe that if you put England, France, Ireland/Wales into a 3N esque tournament (bonus points for 4 tries and home and away legs) you would see a greatly improved show. The 6N really is not built for entertainment and so we will always see close and dour games.

You're right Ben S in terms of 6N being very different to WC - It will be much tougher for England in NZ as in the 6N they have half their games at home and are far more accustomed to the conditions. Surely playing on a faster track in NZ will favour the SH sides? For a SH side to win a grand slam is a much greater achievement than for a NH side during the 6N (end of a long season, all games away, less familiar conditions, etc). The one thing that increases the credibility of a grand slam for England is that Ireland Scotland and Wales get more fired up against England than any other team. Fair call they have been missing some key forwards, but in modern rugby injury is a fact of life - I would be very surprised if any of the major teams are fielding a full strength team in the RWC. WBs have been without several key forwards at any given time for at least the past 12m. Dont get me wrong, England are by far and away the most threatening NH side at the WC - the current standard of competition in the 6N is not a great indicator of the level of competition they will see in the WC Semis (if they make it that far). The rest of the NH has clearly regressed in the past six months so just scraping past three of the four teams to date is hardly a vote of confidence for the old dart

You seriously can not be suggesting that the Crusaders have only whallooped the Brumbies and Tahs because they had a Kiwi ref? The Crusaders are the form team of this competition so far and I doubt very much that had it been any other ref from any other country that the scorelines would have been different.

Best wishes, RF.

The Six Nations bears no comparison to WC rugby: it is dislocated and as a one-off tournament played on generally soggy pitches you get teams trying to effect damage limitation. If we extend your logic then we could say that the Springboks won't be a threat cum WC time because they scraped past Wales and lost to Scotland. Obviously that isn't realistic. A Grand Slam is a very difficult thing to achieve, which is probably why only New Zealand have attained one for the SH in recent seasons. Further, the fact of the matter is that England has basically played this tournament minus 4 of their best forwards, and yet have found a way to win each game. You don't beat Australia away and then at home (by a record score) and suddenly become a less threatening team despite winning the majority of your games since that Test.

I'm in Tokyo. All well here but we might start getting power cuts shortly. The north of the main island has taken a terrible pounding. 5,500 are confirmed lost and around twice that number are missing. On top of that, the logistical problems of looking after half a million people who are homeless, or have had to relocate, are only just beginning. Earthquakes are still hitting us. At any other time, they'd be notable events themselves but they are coming so regularly that it's hard to take them all in. Scroll over to the Japan on the following map and you'll get the idea: http://www.oe-files.de/gmaps/eqmashup.html

A slightly misleading one, I'd suggest, since the Six Nations is an entirely different kettle of fish to the AIs. One thing our southern hemisphere brethren ought to bear in mind is that the Celts raise their game by about a factor of 50 when playing England. A win by a score for England in Cardiff is broadly equivalent to a win by about three scores for New Zealand in Cardiff, bizarre though this might sound. As for the Cup, I think history will work in favour of the southern hemisphere teams this time. The All Blacks and Wallabies were mugged by complacency last time; they certainly won't be complacent against France or England this time, given the history.

A long way to go yet, I think if you compare the English wins to date v Ireland, France, Wales etc and compare them with the SHemisphere recent tours what type of picture does that give???

@brian i can promise u a semi between south africa and nz will very very close and might even come down to luck. sa rugby is suited for knock out tournament rugby! ofcourse nz have home ground advantage and are in the better form at the moment but i wouldnt be shocked if sa beat the all blacks...