2015 Rugby World Cup Big Questions: Luck and disappointment

Right then, so the first big name casualty of the 2015 Rugby World Cup has been claimed, with England sent packing from their own tournament, and plummeting to number eight on the World Rugby rankings; their lowest ever recorded.

But what are we more surprised at – that it was England, or that a big name has gone so early? I don’t really have an answer, I just wanted to refloat that thought bubble.

The final weekend of the pool stage has three pools still yet to be decided and that can mean only two things: sleep will need to be strategic and effective, and that Round 3 of the Big Questions recipe exchange is needed.

And while the stomach and sleep patterns of your garden variety Rugby World Cup fan are important, this week the Big Questions has bigger fish to fry (not a serving suggestion).

Question 1 (from RobC, last Friday): “If England does go through to the quarters, how much further can they realistically go?”

The three of us, in unison: HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAAA! HAHAHAHHAHHAHHAA! AH HAHAHA Hahaaahaha, hee hee, good one, Rob!

The actual Question 1 (from Harry Jones): “Almost all the coaches say fitness, depth, morale, form, and a commitment to the gameplan are necessary to go far in a Rugby World Cup. A few admit luck is crucial, too. Who’s been the luckiest team, so far? And unluckiest?”

Brett: Phaw, good question. I reckon Wales are probably the luckiest. To have lost key players before the tournament, and to then lose more players during the tournament, but play better each game? Wow, bottle that; whatever it is that has kept them going. I’m massively impressed with them in this tournament, and make no mistake, they’re a massive danger for the Wallabies on Sunday.

Unluckiest? Probably Japan. As I wrote on Tuesday, Japan will likely finish the tournament with a record on par with every pool stage runner-up in the tournament and they could still go home. Arguably the form team of the pool stage, and they’ll have nothing to show for it but a decent role in the tournament highlights DVD.

Harry: Japan beat South Africa, but only won two more log points than the Boks. That’s basically calling a win worth only two points. That’s unlucky. Also, Canada goes years without a game against a top team’s A-squad, and then plays three heavyweights in 11 days? A bit unlucky, too. But I’ll go with the Bad Luck Blossoms.

So who is the luckiest team? Probably South Africa, and not just because the worst loss in history netted the Boks two log points. Every single injury has made the Boks faster and better, relieved a coach from making tough calls on beloved older players he simply cannot assess accurately, and removed toxic energy. All Heyneke Meyer needs now is for his strange choice at starting tighthead prop to be cited soon (and isn’t Jannie du Plessis trying his best?), and his luck will have turned completely.

Diggercane: Lucky? I agree with Harry that South Africa is the luckiest team as he has explained.

For me the unluckiest has been Wales, losing so many personnel before and during the tournament. You have to admire their team spirit and performances to date but you have to think it will catch up with them heading into this match and the knockout stages to come.

The Last Word: Brett
Namibia were mighty unlucky on Thursday morning. That was a valiant comeback, and even more so for the fact they did it without their inspirational skipper Jacques Burger, who has since announced the concussion he received in the match means he’s played his last international. What a player.

Question 2 (from Digger): “The dynamic duo of Michael Hooper and David Pocock has proven to be a very effective combination for the Wallabies, however how much of that can be put down to the unsung work horse of the trifecta, Scott Fardy, and his recent form?”

Brett: Probably more than we realise; it’s that unsung. The thing about the three of them is that they complement each other so well. Pocock at No.8 pilfers like Hooper probably should at No.7. Hooper at No.7 carries like Fardy probably should at No.6. Fardy at No.6 defends in the middle like Pocock probably should at No.8.

They don’t necessarily do everything that someone playing their position traditionally should, but Michael Cheika isn’t exactly a traditional coach. As long as the job is being done by someone, then play on.

The mark of how important Fardy is to the trio would be to attempt to play someone else at No.6 alongside Hocock and Pooper. That might be the only way to truly know. But I don’t want that trial to happen before the end of October, thanks.

Harry: I’ve always liked how hard Fardy works. In this tournament so far, he has won four lineouts, completed 17 of 19 attempted tackles, conceded only two penalties while winning one turnover on the deck and collecting one loose ball. He has carried 12 times in 156 minutes, getting over the gain line five of those times for a total of 18 metres. There is a reason there are very few songs sung about him. Although ‘Men at Work’ might like his style.

Diggercane: He has a beard and that is great. I do believe he is not credited enough with his work off the ball helping Pooper shine and I too would be curious to see how a different blindside would operate or affect the balance. At the moment the Wallabies back row is well balanced and the form trio of the tournament, and Fardy deserves a bit of credit for that despite Mr Jones’ ‘facts’. And he has a beard, which makes him great.

The Last Word: Brett (with the benefit of seeing the Wallabies side named late Thursday night)
I reckon Fardy’s value is only underlined further by Sean McMahon coming straight in for Hooper for the Wales game. It’s essentially a like-for-like replacement, meaning the breakdown gameplan and defensive patterns don’t change.

And Fardy’s lineout experience becomes even more important with Dean Mumm starting alongside Kane Douglas, and in place of Rob Simmons. If things aren’t working for Mumm, then he still has Fardy there. Arguably, Fardy’s now the lynchpin of the Wallabies’ pack.

Question 3 (from Brett): “Nemani Nadolo not carded, but suspended. Du Plessis carded, but nothing further. Sam Burgess not penalised or carded on-field, but issued a ‘Citing Commissioner Warning’ (the artist formerly known as an off-field yellow). Hooper penalised, not carded, cited, suspended. Head and neck contact. Discuss.”

Brett: Eerck, what a mess. I get that World Rugby want to crack down on head and neck contact. I get that; that’s the easy bit. But the thing about consistency is that you have to do the same thing all the time.

So what’s gone wrong? Did the some referees not get the memo? Did TMOs get a more strongly worded version? How can a referee and TMO decide after an available review that a penalty will suffice, only to then find out two days later that it should’ve been a red card at the time? How can a referee and TMO examine one incident of potential foul play that happened right in front of them, but then ignore the other one that happened right in front of them?!

And can I seriously ‘discuss’ something by just asking questions?

Harry: Discussion by question is an ancient rabbinical tradition. Ask a rabbi why he answers a question with a question and he’ll reply: ‘Why not?’. Proportionality is a bedrock of judicial systems; a criterion of fairness and justice to discern the correct balance between severity of act and degree of punishment. We are long past lex talionis (eye for an eye), wherein we would tie Hooper up between the goalposts and allow Michael Brown to ram Hooper in the sternum with his shoulder. But we are nowhere near developing a coherent calibration of citing.

In Hooper’s case, his speed is an aggravating factor. Even when the citing commissioner slows the video down, Hooper is at regular speed. In real time, he is nigh invisible; hence, the referee not catching it. Just give him a speeding ticket for knocking a guy who had it coming; proportionality rugby-style.

Diggercane: I usually find when my questions are being answered with questions, particularly when I am at home, that I am usually in quite a lot of trouble.

It’s a mess, simple as that. The whole process is ridiculous in my view, and can be easily simplified. Take the lawyers out of it and perhaps we can achieve some sanity, however I am sure there are pitfalls from a more autocratic approach. But at least there would be no confusion.

The Last Word: Brett (after Hooper’s one-week suspension was handed down)
We can add to the mess Samoan man mountain Alesana Tuilagi being suspended for five weeks for “striking with the knee” in the Japan game! To be clear, I don’t have a lot of issue with him being citied, and I’m quite sure the knee was lifted with only one intention – carnage. But five weeks?

As we’ve seen this week, a lot of overly emotional ranting has been put into highlighting the ridiculous inconsistencies of the judiciary process, and about the only thing clear about it is that it needs to be cleared up. We can’t have the situation where it becomes a lottery; fight the charge, and you never know your luck.

Bonus Points: Which team has disappointed you the most in the tournament thus far?

Harry: To me, the most disappointing team has been Samoa; devoid of fire.

Digger: England. With all the resource and advantage of home tournament, they are the most disappointing to me.

Harry: This will appal you guys, but I am actually feeling sympathy for the English, mostly because Stuart Lancaster, Chris Robshaw, and Joe Launchbury seem like nice blokes…

Brett: Really? Sympathy? For England? Really? I even have minor English heritage and I have no sympathy for them!

Anyhoo, I can’t decide if it’s Samoa or England, so I’ll throw up Tonga just because. They had a decent Pacific Nations Cup coming into the Rugby World Cup, finishing with the same number of wins as Fiji and Samoa, and with Argentina a bit up and down, there was a bit of hope they might push Los Pumas in Pool B.

Instead they finished only just above Namibia, and given the way the Welwitschias pushed Georgia – who beat Tonga – you could even argue Tonga have been the worst team in the tournament.

But really? Sympathy? For England?