Rugby World Cup: Four very different semi-final form lines

Well, I don’t mind admitting I didn’t pick four southern hemisphere Rugby World Cup semi-finalists, but that’s the result we’ve been handed for the 2015 tournament.

South Africa will play New Zealand on Saturday, while Argentina will face Australia on Sunday. Both games will be played at Twickenham Stadium, as will the final on October 31.

>> WORLD RUGBY CONFIRM CRAIG JOUBERT GOT IT WRONG
>> MATCH OFFICIALS FOR RUGBY WORLD CUP SEMI-FINALS ANNOUNCED

But what of the form lines of the four sides? Could there be a bigger contrast of how they all got there, and how they’re currently playing?

Take South Africa, to start somewhere. How many of us, if we didn’t put the line through them completely, at the very least had the red pen poised after the shock loss to Japan in the first week of the tournament?

Funnily enough, that loss swiftly kicked the Springboks into gear, and the manner of the consecutive wins over Samoa, Scotland, and the United States to finish on top of Pool B seemed to erase most of the angst after the Japan loss.

But now it seems the angst over the Japan loss has been replaced by angst over the way they’re playing. Even by South African standards, the current mode of operation appears even more conservative than we’ve come to expect.

And yes, they got the job done against Wales, but can they possibly make a World Cup final by not firing a shot against New Zealand until the 76th minute? I have extreme doubts.

By the numbers, the Boks should have dominated Wales, with 60 per cent territory and possession, plus or minus, and two-thirds of all carries breaking the gain line. They didn’t lose a scrum, didn’t lose a lineout, and didn’t concede any penalties at set piece, either.

So why were they still trailing by a point with less than five on the clock? It’s a head-scratcher.

The big question for me is this: how on earth are they going to turn this ultra-conservatism into one more point than however many the All Blacks score? The Boks don’t strike me as particularly great game-chasers currently, and nor do they look likely to be the pace-setters.

New Zealand have rather ominously announced their intentions to become the first country to win back-to-back Rugby World Cup titles, and against France I always had the feeling we’d know what would unfold within 10 or 15 minutes.

France just stood and accepted the challenge of the Haka, and even though they were only down 10-6 after 15 minutes, they looked to me like they were just hanging on. Another 15 minutes down the way and New Zealand led 24-6 and a thumping was very much on the cards. It was a long way from 2011, and even further again from 2007.

The All Blacks raised some concern over the ditch during the pool stages, and what a nice problem it must be when a seven-tries-to-one over the 14th ranked nation – more than 20 rankings points behind – is not good enough.

At least they fixed that against France, where 33 unanswered points in 22 minutes in the second half saw the All Blacks machine well and truly back on track, and Les Bleus living up to every possible French surrender stereotype you’d care to conjure.

New Zealand’s Kieran Read wins a line out during the Rugby World Cup quarterfinal match between New Zealand and France. (AP Photo/Martin Cleaver)

The All Blacks are scoring tries anywhere on the park, by players in any position, and they’ll take a hell of a lot of beating from here. No questions lingering anymore.

Argentina are the surprise packets of the semis because I hadn’t been enthused by their pre-tournament form, and even in-tournament they hadn’t really provided much to warrant serious reconsideration.

I thought they’d push Ireland, but even when I tweeted “Next try wins this, I reckon” on the hour, I added, “Not sure [Argentina] are looking for tries though”. Even leading 23-20 as they were, the way they let Ireland back into the match had only confirmed my initial feelings.

But that all changed when Juan Imhoff scored nearly 10 minutes later, and then flanker Juan Martin Fernandez Lobbe made a bust down the left a few minutes later again, to put Imhoff away for the win. In between Nico Sanchez – who two months ago was being widely lambasted as an overacting liability – gave a kicking masterclass that proved to be too good.

Form wise, Argentina probably rank alongside the All Blacks currently. But where New Zealand have just exploded into the ruthless beast we’ve been waiting a few weeks for, Los Pumas have enjoyed a steadier build-up. They’re similarly peaking at the right time in this tournament, and a fair argument could be made for them to start favourites against Australia next Sunday.

My only question about Argentina is whether Ireland was their grand final. A lot of emotion and energy would have been invested into proving that they were not just in the knockout stage to make up the numbers, and so what toll will that take when they come up against teams that now do know them quite well?

And so, Australia. I pondered in the Scotland post-match reaction on Monday morning whether the England and Wales results took a bigger emotional and even physical toll than we realised on the Wallabies. In hindsight, I wish I’d made that point earlier, because there were certainly times where they looked very flat and quite fatigued.

Yet for all the reaction – and it was reaction in record numbers, for what it’s worth – it was very easy to overlook the fact that the Wallabies did score five very well constructed tries by varying methods, and similarly that Scotland didn’t really cause a lot of stress to the defence. The Scots only made the gain line around a third of the time they carried the ball.

I wrote that there was plenty the Wallabies will need to work on before Argentina, but in reality, a lot of it is around the periphery: communication in defence, decision making in attack, skill execution, discipline, etc.

All of those things can be easily addressed with an attitude tweak. The core elements of the Wallabies game – the set piece, the ability to see and exploit attacking opportunities, the breakdown work ethic – was there in their game and largely working well.

Even Bernard Foley’s goal-kicking was improving in confidence as the game went on. That doesn’t erase the three first-half misses, of course it doesn’t, but it does show that he was able to rediscover his groove when it really mattered.

There are two big questions about Australia’s chances.

The first one is simple: Pocock, David.

His absence was immediate and obvious, and a stronger breakdown team than Scotland might’ve exploited this opportunity better than they did. Australia’s hopes of progress balance delicately on Pocock’s calf injury. If he’s fit, the Wallabies are every chance of making the final.

Israel Folau was not missed as much, and Kurtley Beale has actually created a nice little headache for Michael Cheika if Folau is deemed 100 per cent fit.

Scott Sio’s shoulder injury will be more worrying than another possible Folau omission. James Slipper is experienced, has been the first choice loosehead for a long time previously, and is capable of holding steady against the Argentineans. The worry will be pitching two-Test Toby Smith into battle off the bench, if Sio is ruled out for this weekend.

The other big question is whether the ability to make that required attitudinal tweak is genuinely there, and not just something that’s spoken of. I’ll say the same thing I said on Monday. The real challenge for the Wallabies now is to prove that the Scotland performance – and not the England and Wales wins – is their 2015 Rugby World Cup anomaly.

The England and Wales wins were seen as perhaps the beginning of a new era for the Wallabies. Failure to learn from the Scotland performance will only confirm that it’s the same as it ever was.