It’s taken 28 years, but the initiators of the entire Rugby World Cup concept finally have the final they have always wanted. Take that Home Nations!

A Rugby World Cup final deserves a proper discussion, though, and not a lengthy intro, so the Big Questions have come in off the long run to tackle one last bumper round of questions.

Once again, my sincere thanks to Harry and Digger for tackling the questions with gusto. We tweaked the format slightly for the Rugby World Cup, and the boys have taken both the questioning and the responses to the next level.

Well played, gents, and hopefully we’ll be back next year…

Question 1: The All Blacks lineout has been the best in the world in recent seasons and shapes as a key area for the final this weekend. Can the Wallabies match up?

Brett McKay: Yep, they can, and it comes down to Rob Simmons and Scott Fardy, who have both just got better and better as this tournament has gone on.

They don’t have to steal every New Zealand throw; they don’t have to steal any New Zealand throws. But if they can just get up and contest, that puts pressure on the throw and the calling. And they play enough against these guys to have a good idea of body language and cues. Lineout parity would be a moral victory for the Wallabies.

Harry Jones: No, the Wallaby lineout – or any set piece – cannot improve enough (on the Wallabies’ own throw) in one week to match the All Blacks lineout, which, together with remarkable tactical kicking, won the semi-final against the Springboks. But I don’t think the clever Wallabies will be as hurt as South Africa was by the disparity.

For the Boks, they lost a go-to weapon when New Zealand targeted throws that were half a foot too low and predictable in jumper target. Australia will find a way to de-emphasise this part of the game with quick throws and darts to the front. Also, Simmons could pinch a Kiwi throw; he’s a great leaper with good hands. If that steal happens at the wrong time for New Zealand, it might be huge.

Diggercane: I view this as an Achilles heel for the Wallabies and one which the All Blacks can potentially exploit. It will be paramount too for New Zealand to do so as the Wallabies have proven very adept of setting mauls and utilising quick ball from off the top.

If they can disrupt the Wallabies lineout, and I think they will, then I suggest the Wallabies will struggle offensively to create momentum and do not have the same ability tactically with the boot as the All Blacks in their halves.

The Last Word: Brett
I like that Digger has been throwing this little barb up all week. First it was on the site, then it popped up on the Cheap Seats podcast, it’s been on Twitter, and now it’s here, too.

Well played, mate, ‘Shag’ would be proud…

Question 2: Equally, the scrum set piece has been an area of some vulnerability for both sides in the last few weeks. Who has the most to lose if they can’t achieve scrum ascendancy?

Brett: Probably Australia, if I’m honest. New Zealand are one of the few teams in professional rugby who don’t necessarily need to dominate the scrum to achieve front-foot ball, such is their ability to create momentum elsewhere on the ground, through their pick-and-drive with forward pods, and the like. If the Wallabies can’t get good quality front-foot scrum ball, however, well, we all know how that story has ended in the past…

Harry: Tough question, but I’d say Australia. The All Blacks don’t hook and clear the ball from a retreating scrum as fast as Japan (0.8 seconds at Brighton), but they come close. The Wallabies would want to drive, maul, and roll scrums longer; so if they can’t dominate in that phase, it will be an edge lost.

Digger: I have to say Australia as well, for the reasons given. Next.

The Last Word: Brett
This all said, I’m quite sure the Wallabies will target the New Zealand scrum, with the five-metre scrum penalty achieved on the Kiwis’ tryline in Sydney fresh in their minds. And I’d even argue the Wallabies scrum has improved since Sydney, too.

Question 3: The All Blacks kicked from hand 47 times in the semi-final, and only three or four were poorly chosen or executed. I cannot find a match in years where one team kicked that much. Will the final be – as usual – a tactical kicking duel with the most errant team losing?

Brett: Wow, really, 47 times? That’s extraordinary, I hadn’t seen that. I don’t know that the final will definitely be a tactical kicking duel, but it’s almost certainly in New Zealand’s interest to try and turn it into one.

If the Wallabies have to try and make ground through Bernard Foley’s boot, then New Zealand can almost make more ground without the ball than with it. Equally, it’s crucial that Will Genia, Matt Giteau, and Drew Mitchell present as kicking options, both to share the workload and to take some pressure off Foley on exit.

Harry: Australia kicked the least in the semi-finals (36 times), but still kicked 7.8 times more than their average up until that round. New Zealand went from kicking 29.3 times per match to the record – for all teams in all matches anywhere in 2015 – 47 times.

I doubt either side will kick less than 30 times; but the style of kick (chip, grubber, slider, up-and-under) and mix will be fascinating. Australia’s back three are all interchangeable under the high ball, while New Zealand has a possible weak link in Julian Savea.

Digger: I agree with Brett here, I see the All Blacks as having the better kicking game and I can easily see the Wallabies pegged back in their half for long periods and forced to attack from long range. I think this particular element will go a long way to deciding the final. Advantage New Zealand.

The Last Word: Brett
This to me places even more pressure on the fitness of Israel Folau. The Wallabies cannot afford a labouring Folau to be constantly caught out of position while Dan Carter and the Smiths (sounds like a band) pepper open grass for fun. If Folau isn’t fit enough, don’t pick him.

Question 4: New Zealand has been the best side in the world in large part due to their juggernaut bench, which sometimes improves the Kiwi’s line speed and pace of ball. Sam Cane, Beauden Barrett, for example, are substantially faster than the starters they replace. Are there any changes Australia can make to their bench to combat this All Black edge?

Brett: I don’t think there’s any extra pace and impact to be found outside what is now a pretty predictable Wallabies 23, but Michael Cheika can certainly help his cause by going to his bench earlier and using his replacements a little smarter than in recent weeks.

Think back to the wins in Brisbane and Sydney, and it was the first outing of this new-fangled ‘finishers’ concept, where the Wallabies benefited from some clever replacements from as early in the game as the 45th minute. If the Wallabies are on the back foot, going to the likes of Nick Phipps, Matt Toomua, and Kurtley Beale (assuming Folau starts) with less than 10 minutes on the clock only makes their ability to ‘finish’ harder.

Harry: I’m worried for Australia in the sense that I think Fardy, Kane Douglas, and Simmons have logged a lot of minutes, but aren’t really replaceable, while New Zealand can bring in players that are arguably in better form than the starters they replace. Barrett might have been the tide-changer in the semi-final against the Boks; might it be Cane this time?

Digger: I suppose you could consider Sean McMahon when up against Cane but otherwise no, I don’t see the Wallabies being able to introduce the same amount of skill level or proven impact outside of Beale. Whether you gave some thought to starting Ben McCalman for the first 30 then introducing Michael Hooper I am not sure, but perhaps the out-of-box thinking may just upset the applecart.

The Last Word: Brett
Harry’s point about some of the forwards logging big minutes – and intense minutes – is really good, and highlights this point further. It’s been pretty clear for some time that the starting pack is the best pack by some margin, and it remains squeaky bum time when Dean Mumm, especially, goes on for Simmons. That’s not exactly bench impact, is it…

Question 5: Two teams not known for scrummaging dominance are the only two unbeaten teams in a UK tournament in the autumn. Are scrums that crucial to dominate any more, or is ‘competence’ enough, with the added benefit of more mobile props and hookers?

Brett: Scrum dominance still wins many more games than it loses. As I said above, it’s rare that a team can still build momentum and create front foot ball without relying on the scrum set piece.

Australia tried the concept of scrum ‘competence’ with mobile props and hooker earlier this century, and though it took them to a Rugby World Cup final early in the experiment, it’s only this year that the Wallabies are starting to overcome some of the ‘weak scrum’ preconceptions and baggage that that idea created. But the irony of the situation as outlined in the question is duly noted!

Harry: In the Springboks’ semi-final, there wasn’t a scrum until long after both teams had scored. By the time the scrums started, Frans Malherbe’s superiority over Joe Moody didn’t have a chance to change the game, and then in the last 20 minutes, the reserve props stalemated.

I think a scrum error or reversal might be crucial in the final, though. I hope not, because honestly, Nigel Owens hasn’t always impressed me with his knowledge of fulcrum, bind, lines and angles in the scrum.

Digger: Competence is enough but only if the balance of your team’s game is above par. The scrum is still a great platform to attack and importantly, to ensure and disrupt comfortable exits so a dominant scrum should always be the aim, particularly with the vagaries of officiating and the chance to accumulate points.

The Last Word: Brett
Agree with all points here. And if both packs start getting frustrated with Owens’ interpretations and rulings, the ability to find fast and efficient ‘channel one’ ball will be crucial to still being able to create that attacking platform that both teams covet so much.

Bonus Point: Winner, scoreline, and why?

Brett: Australia by 5. I’m astounded by what Cheika has been able to achieve in 12 months and even more so in the last five. The team now clearly believes they can run through a black wall, all because Cheika says so.

Harry: The All Blacks by 12. Three yellow cards. A fight or two. David Pocock will outplay Richie McCaw, but Dan Carter, Aaron Smith, and Ma’a Nonu won’t be outplayed by Bernard Foley, Matt Giteau, and Will Genia. Barrett, Sonny Bill Williams, and Cane will stretch Australia to their limits and beyond and this will also mean that South Africa was the true runner-up…

Digger: Really? Gee, let me consider this… All Blacks. By 18. Why? Because I expect (okay, hope) to see a real statement made by this group. This game has been a clear focus for this squad for some time and they will be hell-bent on making sure many of the retiring greats go out on a high.

I feel the All Blacks are fresher and have more gas in the tank. Also, because the kicking game is better and the lineout is better and this (Brett) will be crucial.

Brett: So you keep saying, mate…

Bonus Point 2: Poey Player of the final?

Brett: Correct. If Australia wins, anyone that possibly outplays David Pocock will have turned in a performance that will be spoken of in revered tones decades from now. In fact, if Australia wins, Pocock will be a lay-down misere for Player of the Tournament, which may or may not be real.

Harry: Dan Carter. The best playmaker of his generation. And finally in the biggest game. He won’t let his teammates down.

Digger: If Australia wins, Pocock. For the All Blacks, I am going to say Ma’a Nonu. He is a big game player.

Brett: Digger, you know Nonu used to wear eye makeup in games, right?

Open Question To Finish: Roarers, what’s been your favourite 2015 Rugby World Cup moment?