The World Cup Wrap: Quarter-finalists decided but only three teams can win

Pool play is over, and while the teams described variously as developing nations, tier two, minnows and England have provided much entertainment and combativeness, the real business now begins.

In the strictest sense, any of the remaining eight sides can win this world cup. Where there is life there is hope and the allure of the upset victory.

I saw Tears I Cry win the 2007 Group 1 Emirates Stakes starting at 101/1, with some bookies betting as much as 151/1. And, as a shocking pool player who everyone would eagerly avoid when selecting a partner, I once miraculously cleared the table in one hit – from break to the black – at the hallowed Taumarunui Cosmopolitan Club.

But let’s face it, any serious player, like Taylorman for example, would callously wipe the table with me, playing blindfolded, left-handed and on his tenth pint. And running the microscope closely over the quarter-finalists tells the same story.

It’s an early call, but from the safe distance of St Kilda, Melbourne – admittedly a long way from the action – it looks like there are five also-rans and three possible winners left in the contest.

Who can’t love the country, the golf courses and the people? However Scotland doesn’t even have a slim chance. What makes them and their fans so endearing is that at least they know it.

In a must-win final pool match against Samoa they matched Samoa’s four tries with just three of their own. One from a maul where there was a strong suspicion that the ball wasn’t grounded, and another gifted from a pass from Tim Nanai-Williams so bad that Nick Phipps on an off-day couldn’t have matched it.

Scotland is a perfect quarter-final match up for Australia. With defence the order of the day against Wales, this match will still provide them with a stern enough test up front, but plenty of opportunity to breathe life into their backline.

Overcoming Wales has handed the Wallabies a free pass into the semi-finals, only two wins from the holy grail. They are by no means perfect, but they have key elements in their favour, making them one of the three possible winners.

Their scrum is, at worst, good enough to provide a reliable source of ball, and at best, a source of penalties. One can argue the toss about which side has the best scrum but the important point is that the Wallabies’ scrum, including replacements, is good enough and consistent enough to get the job done. Enough said.

A second winning factor is that their defence is both well organised structurally, and efficient in its execution. Whatever Wales’ tactical shortcomings, the Wallabies’ tackling was superb – as it had been against England.

History shows that a staunch defence is an essential precursor to winning world cups. Another critical box ticked.

And despite Sean O’Brien’s sterling effort overnight against France, Australia owns the standout pilfering loose forward of the tournament in David Pocock. The way rugby is being played now it is essential to effect breakdown turnovers, which often deliver key momentum shifts. Whatever number on his back, he is the gold standard.

Even if Pocock’s leg injury is a concern – and Michael Cheika can elect to pit Michael Hooper and Sean McMahon against Scotland – he has two weeks to get him right for a semi-final.

One question mark over Australia is that the so-called ‘pool of death’ may not have been as shark infested as first feared. There is a growing sense that old chestnut, southern hemisphere dominance over the north, is a reality, and that the real contest lies with the Rugby Championship nations.

If so, the Wallabies still have more difficult days to come.

Wales are a good side with some excellent players – Toby Faletau seems to have been around forever, but is playing better than ever – but denied the fast lane to the semis by Australia, they are now in a hopeless position.

Their title hopes were extinguished not just by their naive inability to convert a two-man advantage, but ironically by sharpshooter Dan Biggar missing a very kickable penalty on the stroke of halftime.

If Wales had only trailed by three points instead of six, the hectic period on the Wallabies’ goal-line could have been played very differently. Perhaps one attempt at a lineout drive, one at a scrum against seven men. Then, rather than go all-in for a try, they could have flipped over one of the penalties to draw level, and used the numerical advantage to get straight back down to the Wallabies 22.

Brave, yes. Unlucky with injuries, yes. World Cup winners, no.

For South Africa to win they would need to become the first side to do so after having lost a pool match. Entirely possible of course, particularly with the best second row in the tournament.

Their first round loss to Japan had the feel of a golfer rushing to the first tee in time only for one cursory practice swing before duck-hooking a tee shot into the cabbage. Followed since by another hole or two to settle into the game and re-establish some rhythm to the swing.

Their record over the last year remains a concern – too many losses against too many different opponents – but South Africa are always one of the sides who can win a world cup, this one being no exception.

France versus Ireland in the final Pool D match was always going to be crucial, and Cardiff gave us a match of brutal intensity, close to the best seen so far. Despite serious injuries, Ireland’s second half was compelling and full of self-belief. It was very impressive.

Their prize is a pathway through the Argentina and Australia side of the draw, clearly more palatable than the New Zealand and South Africa option.

But for all their worth, can they win the three more consecutive matches at this level without Paul O’Connell and potentially Johnny Sexton? I don’t think so.

All of the clichés will be rolled out again this week about France being New Zealand’s bogey side, and while any French side remains a potential threat, this version is not a world cup winner.

Argentina has caught the eye in pool play, and with recent wins against South Africa and Australia to their credit, and multiple dimensions now to their play, they are right in the mix. On reflection however, for all of their quality play against New Zealand, they were soundly beaten when the game ramped up a gear in the second half.

Their day is coming, but not at this world cup.

Which leaves New Zealand, and despite the English press knocking themselves over in their haste to seize on sloppy play against Georgia and Namibia and extrapolate this into an All Black obituary, they remain the team to beat.

They face a massive task if they are to do it, a potential triple header of France, South Africa and Australia looming. They also need to find their optimal match rhythm, which comes when they play more directly. This should allow them to minimise some of the untidy handling seen so far, and allow them to keep the ball for longer periods.

If the All Blacks continue to play too close to the advantage line, opposition sides will eagerly rush up and disrupt their forwards in midfield collisions. And it will have been noted that one of the downsides of Israel Dagg and Corey Jane fading out is a new found hesitancy under the high ball.

On the plus side, Tony Woodcock aside, they have not (so far) been knocked around by injury, their defence is high quality, and they have the highest number of players who can create tries through individual brilliance, most notably Aaron Smith, Sonny-Bill Williams and Nehe Milner-Skudder.

It may seem convenient that for a website catering mostly to Australian, New Zealand and South African rugby supporters, it is these three sides who are singled out as winning chances.

So be it. This is the best of the best, and world cups are not won by accident.

Thus, one of the southern hemisphere ‘big three’ it is – but which one will it be?