Good Lord, this week is dragging. There are mountains of discussion about the rugby, but we’ve got very little raw material to get our teeth into; so it’s mostly all hot air and I’m as guilty as the next fan.
Occasionally, a punter sticks his head above the parapet and tips one of the island teams to spring a surprise but that’s not really much of a gamble. Fiji, Samoa and Tonga have all stepped up in the past, often at the expense of Wales, so it’s well within the bounds of possibility to see one of them do it again.
I’m certainly no Nostradamus, so don’t expect any great insights here.
It is interesting, though, to see how unwilling we all are to predict any upsets, when the brief history of the Rugby World Cup has thrown up quite a few.
The top three in the IRB rankings are the southern hemisphere giants.
However, there’s only been one World Cup final without a Northern Hemisphere side, namely 1995 in South Africa. The IRB didn’t release rankings back then, but South Africa might not have been in the top three in ’95.
They certainly weren’t the no-hopers that Clint Eastwood’s ‘Invictus’ portrayed, but the Boks had lost a fair few matches in the early days of their return to international rugby.
Arguably, the only finals contested between two of the top three teams were in 1987 and 2003.
If you wanted to get picky, 2003 wouldn’t count. The first IRB rankings were released three days into the 2003 tournament.
Australia were in third place, but would have been fourth behind Ireland at the time of the opening match of the Rugby World Cup.
So why do most pre-tournament predictions focus on the form of the top three? 2007 saw a final between fourth-ranked South Africa and seventh-ranked England.
The top two teams were out in the quarter-finals and South Africa might have followed if they hadn’t pulled themselves together against Fiji.
As others on The Roar have said, the history of the Rugby World Cup is really too short to draw any conclusions; especially when you consider that three tournaments pre-date the professional era.
It does seem, though, as if we are steadily realizing that the Rugby World Cup throws up particular challenges which we don’t see in any other parts of the international calendar.
When a player misses out on a Six Nations or Tri Nations, he might console himself that next year isn’t so far away to make amends. There will even be some juicy challenges in the form of tour matches in the meantime.
That’s not true at a Rugby World Cup. Four more years is a long wait as George Gregan was once keen to emphasize.
Some older players go in, knowing they won’t have another chance. Younger players can’t be certain they’ll still be in form or favour four years away, especially since different coaches often take over the reins.
That creates entirely different pressures. If you find yourself down by more than seven points in the second half, when do you decide to throw caution to the wind?
Perhaps, you do so at twenty minutes only to find the referee addicted to scrum resets. One massive clearing kick by the opposition and suddenly you are back in your own 22, with only 15 minutes left on the clock.
The pressure gets worse when you are up against a team you are supposed to beat.
Many less highly-ranked teams get to spend more time in training together before a Cup so they can present a more formidable obstacle than usual.
It’s a strong player who doesn’t get overcome by visions of the next day’s headlines, when he sees some unfancied lock charging down a kick and touching down to score.
We haven’t yet seen an example in the Rugby World Cup, of the horror which is the penalty shoot-out. Wilkinson saw off that possibility in 2003, but it seems almost inevitable that one match will soon be decided that way.
Just over two years ago in a Heineken Cup semi-final, flanker Martyn Williams missed his kick for Cardiff, leaving Leicester number 8 Jordan Crane to put over the deciding score.
Has any team made preparations for that kind of outcome? In 2007, New Zealand hadn’t even prepared themselves for drop goals.
How many Roarers actually know the rules for a shootout? Each side takes five kicks from the centre of the 22 and then, if scores are tied, it’s sudden death from that point.
I’m not even sure if teams can only select players from the fifteen on the pitch at the final whistle. If so, it would present an interesting conundrum for a coach looking at his replacements as the clock counted down.
It’s true that the Rugby World Cup has, so far, only been won by major rugby nations. It would be a brave man to suggest anything different this year.
The form guide from the international matches before a tournament can only take you so far, however. The fear of failure or a growing sense that it’s just not your day have infected teams and thrown the form guide out the window before.
I can’t predict which top sides will succumb but it will be a surprise if none do in the coming weeks.
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
I don't think anyone likes the idea of a penalty shootout but, when you have a tournament, you can't arrange replays for tied quarters & semis because it would throw the whole timetable out. It would also mean more wear a tear for teams who will already have played an additional half hour of extra time. It wouldn't even be that easy to schedule a replay in the event of a tied final. Sponsors and broadcasters probably have a big say here and would demand a winner on the day. Travelling supporters would also be disadvantaged. Actually, the extra time factor is something else you don't see in the rest of the Test match calendar. Rugby's scoring system usually turns up fewer draws than a sport like football but it's telling that two finals in the short history of the Cup have already gone to extra time.
jumpers
Guest
Extra time should be played or a rematch played if its still a draw!
Tissot Time
Guest
As a neutral observer at Homebush in 2003 I was hoping for a draw. Aussie would have won a kick off as they had that droppie expert Matt Dunning on the bench.
Matthew Skellett
Guest
My Girlfriend expects me to live like a caveman for 6 weeks lol -well as long as there is enough corona and limes in da fridge and red rock munchies within reach lol happy days indeed :-)
Matthew Skellett
Guest
I think Mr O'Brien's instructions are simple =to kiss as much AB ass as possible :-) and be blessed :-)
Brett McKay
Guest
Just taking it one night at a time, Blinky??
Lorry
Guest
if at the end of extra time the points are still level, they should do a replay the following week. That was a fair ending to the Aussie Rules GF last year, the same should be done for the WC!!
Rugby Fan
Roar Guru
The World Cup throws up some other variables which you don't see in other parts of the international calendar. All the referees have been giving a briefing by Paddy O'Brien on what areas to police more strictly. Teams routinely do an analysis of refs to see how they control a game. The new instructions, however, will likely change the usual way they operate so players will have to work out during the competition what is no longer allowable. Certainly, all squads know what advice O'Brien has handed down but there's no substitute for seeing it in action. There's also the question of drop goals. Most fans want to see tries but knockout rugby raises the stakes. It seems to become a more important weapon in building pressure or staying in touch. Stransky and Wilkinson both won World Cups with drop goals. Rob Andrew put Australia out with one and Larkham did the same to South Africa. Lamaison's two drop goals against New Zealand were a crucial part in building his team's momentum to a famous win over New Zealand in 1999. Jannie de Beer's string of five drop goals tortured England and took the match away from Woodward's team. We might not care for a game littered with them but every major team except New Zealand has used drop goals to good effect in the Cup. (Grant Fox did slot one during the win over France in 1987 but it didn't really affect the course of the game). There's something about the tournament which seems to encourage teams to make sure they come away with three points rather than risk going for the try when games get tight. An additional factor can be the crowd. In normal internationals, teams know in advance whether the crowd is likely to be for or against them. Sometimes a home crowd might turn on its own team, particularly if you are France, but that doesn't often happen. In World Cups, particularly the later round where most seats are filled, there's a higher proportion of neutrals. Many might start a game favouring one team. It was clear, for instance, the Twickenham crowd got behind France against New Zealand in 1999 and the French returned the compliment when England faced Australia in 2007. Mostly, neutrals get behind the underdog because they want to see an upset. They might, however, begin to favour a team who seem to have been on the receiving end of some bad decisions. They might turn against a team who seem to have got away with some foul play. The mood can change, and I'm sure that affects the players on the pitch, increasing the pressure at unpredictable moments.
Blinky Bill of Bellingen
Guest
Yep she's all quiet on the Western Front. That's for sure. And that may not be all bad. For starters no Wallaby is opening his gob, sleeping in, getting drunk, having food fights or doing any other dumb arse thing to derail years and years of hard work. So there's a plus. Personally I'm getting myself match fit by getting a bad case of 'square eye' as I sit through a strict training regime of Fox Sports excellent series of Rugby classic test matches. In the lounge room I've rearranged the lounge chair 50 different ways to try and get the best angles and greatest comfort to ensure that I don't injure myself pulling off a ring top or going for the remote control. I think I'm all sorted out. I've also got the Missus flying out to Sydney for a few days away with family. So it's just the dogs, the fridge, Austar & Moi. Happy days.
Turnover
Roar Guru
Good Article... "Many less highly-ranked teams get to spend more time in training together before a Cup so they can present a more formidable obstacle than usual." Simple point but so true. The Fijians were ever so close against the SA's at Marsielle in '07.
AdamS
Roar Guru
I think a penalty shootout is a travesty A terrible way to decide what must have been a terrific match. They should just let them play golden point until players drop from fatigue and it finally ends.