I am looking forward to the real man’s World Cup next year – where men only get stretchered off the field if they’ve broken something and won’t be back five minutes later to prance around.
But unfortunately there is only one team with a real shot at taking home the title: New Zealand.
Australia, England and South Africa will all have very good teams, each capable of winning in their own right, but the nature of the draw will mean that none of these teams will have the legs to beat New Zealand in the final.
Australia and England have the toughest run in the ‘pool of death’, where they have been grouped together with Wales and Fiji. That’s two games against top-10 opponents and another against Fiji, who are no mugs and sit in 11th spot. Ouch.
South Africa aren’t too much better off with three top-10 opponents in Samoa, Scotland and Japan. Although it’s easier than facing Australia, England, Wales and Fiji, this is still tough pool for the South Africans.
Compare that to New Zealand’s pool matches against Argentina (12), Tonga (13), Georgia (15) and Namibia (22) and no one can argue they have shockingly easy run to the quarter-finals.
Some might argue this would leave the Kiwis underdone, with no big games under their belt heading into the next round. But they’ll most likely be up against France or Ireland, which will hardly have them shaking in their boots.
Sure, France have been the Kiwi’s bogey team in World Cups, but it’s hard to see the current side repeating the miracles of past teams.
Meanwhile, in Pool A and B, South Africa will be up against either Australia or England (I’m assuming Wales won’t make it past the pool stage) and the side not playing South Africa will be up against the physical Samoans.
As an Aussie, I’m going to back the Wallabies to win Pool A and beat Samoa in the quarter-final, leaving England to face South Africa.
That brings us to the semi-final, where the Wallabies will face the winner of South Africa or England.
On the other side of the draw, New Zealand will play either France, Ireland or Argentina in their semi-final. The Kiwi’s will have to shift into third gear for this game but should breeze though without too much trouble and be fresh and ready to go for the final.
To be honest, it won’t matter who they play as the second, third and fourth ranked teams in the world will be knackered after playing each other at least once in the lead-up to the final.
At international level, it’s getting tougher and tougher to put in two big performances back-to-back against quality opposition. That intensity only magnifies during a World Cup, where getting knocked out of the tournament is at stake.
Putting in three big performances with a fresh and warmed up New Zealand at the finish line will be almost impossible.
Fortunately, New Zealand is my second favourite team behind Australia, so I’m fairly certain one of my favourite teams will win. But I can’t help feel that it will be a little anti-climactic watching the All Blacks trounce a weary Australia, England or South Africa in the final.
Mark
Guest
And you could just as easily argue NZ will be underdone...
Mark
Guest
And before 99 SF they had been thrashed by NZ France in a RWC are NEVER poor Anyone who thinks otherwise is 1. Stupid and 2. Incapable of learning from History
wazza perth nz ex pat
Guest
Wales & Wallabies- both average teams at the time of the draw !
Marcus North
Guest
Wallabies won't play England in a semi-final, as they will be on the other side of the draw. Australia will only play South Africa if either South Africa or Australia finish second in their pool. Assuming Australia, South Africa and New Zealand win their pools. New Zealand will play the winner of South Africa and England (assuming England come second to Australia in the pool)... After playing either France or Ireland, that's a tough match for New Zealand to follow up with.
44bottles
Roar Guru
I reckon Samoa-Ireland/France-NZ is easier than Argentina-Aus/England-NZ, but they are close
Jerry
Guest
It didn't used to be applied every 4 years in football though, that's only come about in the last 20 years. That's my point, it started out as a descriptive term for an unusually hard group and it's become a cliche to describe the hardest (or indeed merely the most even) pool in every tournament.
Rob9
Guest
Point I was making there; it was first used in soccer and is every 4 years in that code. I don't think they're reserving it for groups that were as tough as that 1970 pool.
Jerry
Guest
The 1970 WC was relevant to your phrase 'first coined the term' as it was the first time the phrase was used in this context.
Rob9
Guest
I'd suggest it's just a term used to identify the toughest group at a World Cup. It's something used at most world cups including the RWC (and at every FIFA WC) and I don't think the memory of the 1970 FIFA WC is thought of when it's used. The toughest group definition is certainly what it is used for in the code that established the term. And with the serious contenders and depth of competition that exists within soccer, there's always a handful of tough groups and one is always labelled the group of depth. I agree, in rugby as there's usually no more than 7 or 8 teams that have a realistic chance of surviving past the first knockout stage, world cups come by where there's not really a group of death. The last RWC is an example of this. Although SA, Wales and Samoa's group was an interesting one with Samoa having a reasonably strong team that might have had a better chance at progressing in any of the other 3 groups. Usually there's a group or 2 with an interesting plot like who takes 1st spot between France and NZ or England and SA, or who takes 2nd spot between Fiji and Wales or Scotland and Italy. But I agree, often times there's not a legitimate group of death that's really wide open and packed with 3 teams that mean business. Group D of 07 fits the GOD mould for mine and behind the 2015 group A, is the next best example of a group of death at a RWC.
Jerry
Guest
I just think it's an overused term. As for 'including those who coined the term' - (from wiki) the original group of death was in the 1970 FIFA World Cup. It contained the reigning champion, the eventual champion and a side that had been runner up 8 year prior. So that's 3 sides who would be viewed as realistic contenders prior to the tournament. I'd argue the concept has been severely watered down.
Rob9
Guest
There wasn't more than 1 group of death. Just a couple of groups that were debated as the holder of that title. By the start of the tournament most had settled on group G. Jerry, it sounds like you've got your own definition for what a group of death constitutes and that's fine. But what you have to recognise is that you've set higher standards than what most others have, including those that first coined the term. You get no argument from me that the current group of death is the toughest in RWC history. But that's not to say there hasn't been other 'groups of death' at previous RWC's that easily fit into the widely used standards of the term.
Jerry
Guest
You're preaching to the converted on that score - the term is even more overused in football. The fact that there was more than one 'Group of Death' just confirms it.
Rob9
Guest
Let me also put it to you this way. The term 'Group of Death' was born out of the FIFA WC. This year there were a couple of groups advertised as the GOD: Group G- Germany, Portugal, USA and Ghana. Group B- Spain, Netherlands, Chile and Australia. Group D- Italy, England, Uruguay and Costa Rica. These were the main groups with group G being the most widely considered GOD. Now do you truly believe the 3rd team in each of these groups (USA, Chile and Uruguay) would have a better chance of making a WC final than Ireland and Argentina did in the RWC in 2007?
Rob9
Guest
So should group A from the 2 previous RWC's be the real group of death because the 2 eventual finalists came from these groups? As you said, what makes a group of death is 3 teams with a shot of making it to a final. I think I've made my point that group D looked to be a bloody competitive group with teams ranked 3, 5 and 6 coming into the World Cup. It did not disappoint and as history now tells us, the team that was meant to fall on it's sword earliest ended up topping the group and finishing 3rd overall. I'd go as far to suggest that if the Pumas had England's path from the QF's, they would have made the final. This dispite being the team with the longest odds and being grouped alongside teams 3 & 5 in the world and the 1st and 2nd finishes at the 2 previous 6N tournaments (clearly the NH's most dominant sides at the time). For me, that's a group of death, and I think most people would agree that apply it to 07's Group D isn't exactly using the term loosely...
Jerry
Guest
I'd say there's a pretty big difference in making that argument over 1 side vs 2 sides though.
Rob9
Guest
For mine, 3 teams ranked within the top 6 before a World Cup and all jammed into the one pool constitutes a pretty legit group of death. Although, as I've said, I believe this group of death is an even harder one than the one in 2007. At the end of the day, it's a similar scenario in that all 3 teams are ranked within the top 6. The argument that you're making re; Argentina and Ireland in 2007 could be transferred over to the current Welsh side. They haven't beaten a big Southern Hemisphere opponent in 5 or 6 years and they'll almost certainly have to do that to top the group and if not they'll be on course to play two of them in order to make the final. I believe this Welsh side is a very good one and is capable (although at long odds) of topping the group. I also believe it wouldn't have been out of this world to suggest that a very strong Argentine side (arguably their strongest in the professional era) or Europe's then second strongest team (a team that included a lot of big names in their prime) were also capable of topping their group and eventually finding themselves in a final.
Firstxv
Guest
thats good...you'll need that sense of humour...
Vic
Guest
And three of the horses wuz robbed......but I think you write off the Frenchies at your peril. Granted, they don't look do good atm, but never underestimate Les Bleu.
Buzzard
Guest
Pool A. Oz winner Wales runner up Pool B. Boks & Samoa Pool C. NZ & Pumas Pool D. France & Ireland 1/4 1. Boks v Wales 1/4 2. NZ v Ireland 1/4 3. OZ v Samoa 1/4 4. France v Argentina Semi 1. Boks v NZ Semi 2. OZ v Argentina Final NZ v OZ
Jerry
Guest
Sure, but England 07 would go down as arguably the worst team to make a RWC final (with France 11 being the only alternative). Before the tournament I don't think many would have been picking Argentina or Ireland as chances for a final.