BOD did say something stupid in all honesty.

Which was telling the world an Australian was moving somewhere else for sunshine.

He’s not from feckin Clontarf Brian.

You position can really hamstring players in debates such as these. Flyhalves often have to exhibit more conspicuous skills than other positions, and you could make a case that backs’ skill sets are more conspicuous than those of the big boys.

Lomu was the most devastating weapon in rugby history and probably will always be. He put rugby on the map and changed the game. But he wasn’t the complete winger, let alone the complete player. His position and the way his teams brought him into the game obviously maximised his skill set, which was extraordinary and got people looking at rugby in a whole new light.

Cullen was the best runner with the ball I’ve ever seen, I think it was maybe that he wasn’t a behemoth like Jonah. But he didn’t change the game.

Carter was the best 10 I’ve seen. Could do absolutely everything with and without a rugby ball and dammit looked pretty to boot. The great 10s, John, Carter, Wilko, Bennett could get your team out of trouble. Their navigation skills were to the fore as much as anyone’s if not more. But these guys didn’t revolutionise their position like Lomu did. Hell I saw Henry Honiball smashing runners from 10 a while before Wilkinson.

You get really special guys once in a while, I’ve been lucky enough to see a few (and not just from NZ-I do realise my post is quite NZ centric up to now). Eales (and that kick), Horan, BOD, Wilko, Johnson, Kirwan, Porta even. I always thought Michael Jones was the greatest I’ve ever seen. Just ridiculous skill, pace and temperament. Sadly I was there when he was stretchered off Athletic Park in 89. 87-89 there was none better. But longevity has luck attached to it and McCaw had a bit of one and a lot of the other. I was still thinking Jones was the best ever up to 2011 but McCaw just kept going and going and going, and winning and winning and winning. He has unquestionably the best CV of any to play the game. He was part of some great teams but he is a huge reason why they were great. The immeasurables like his mana and how he inspired the others as well as his grit and determination to be nothing but an absolute champion tip the scales in his favour. Of course we’re all talking about minutae and comparing apples to oranges, but the guy is just remarkable and it’s possible his achievements will never be equalled.

Was a pretty precisely aimed knee to the head for someone that was running in at absolutely full tilt-you try doing it over and over again and see how many times you can get it that flush. McCaw’s timing at rucks is unbelievable but not that unbelievable. Going to complain that he wasn’t suspended for that horrible elbow on Fran Louw now?

Love your work Kia. Engaging and accurate analogy. Thanks again for the pub recommendation in Madrid-enjoyed O’Neills with a fair few Kiwis and a lone South African. After the nervous breakdown I had to buy him a beer. We all know how much it hurts and the poor man was on his lonesome support wise.

Kudos to the Wallabies-they thoroughly deserve to be in the final and have probably been the team of the tournament. NZ have the performance of the tournament however and have come off the tougher game. I think both sides can claim too many pros and cons to establish a true favourite. Well unless you’re the Aussie Telegraph.

I won’t enjoy the game tomorrow. I’ll be a wreck and whilst being verbose the content won’t be printable, let alone fit to be compared to your piece 😉 Yet I hope as many people as possible can enjoy the game and go home with their view of our game enhanced by what they have just seen.

Sod the odds I’ll take a one point win.

No miracles needed Chinmay. SA are a bloody good side who push NZ to the limit every time they meet. There was massive intensity from NZ on Saturday and a desperation to just massacre them that I felt from the stands-but that is really hard to replicate in successive weeks especially with the step up in opposition. SA actually tapered off a bit in their intensity after being on a mission since Japan but the Welsh scare has gotten them up again and I think they’ll be really up for it this weekend. The bench does suit NZ, but if SA make them chase the game then it’s definitely advantage Boks.

Argentina will put Australia under just as much pressure as Scotland and they really won’t want to go to the wire again. Big boosts are the imminent returns of Pocock and Folau but Argentina’s support play is good enough to not let Pooper have a field day. Australia favourites but it could go to the wire again.

Possibly it will tighten the game up mate, but you watch the second half of the last time NZ played at Twickenham where it belted down and NZ had Coles in the bin. Serious accuracy.

Apparently NMS is looking all right but Crockett is doubtful. Meaning Ben Franks will probably end up on the bench while Moody, who was impressive, starts.

Well before Saturday Carter had never completed a knockout match at 10. I think the stage is set for him to make the exit from international rugby he wants. Remember the biggest game he’s played outside WCs was the 2nd Lions test-didn’t go too badly for him (though he did get hurt with 3 to go or something).

Yeah mate I assumed everyone knew about the potential injuries which is why I mentioned those guys I suppose.

Was just thinking there could be space for SA in the wide channels should NZ be preoccupied with keeping ball in play and forcing SA to kick.

They’re a more physical side than BB or Marto think though. The key is cutting off NZ’s space and forcing Carter to stand deeper.

It’s a big comedown from the QF performance-hope NZ can back it up enough to be able to fire some shots this weekend.

Any news on injuries your side mate? NMS might be right on our side but Crockett’s a doubt. That throws the cat amongst the pigeons.

Nice one Bilt. Glad I don’t have to dictate instead of type on here, can barely speak since Saturday.

Mate NZ are most of the time seen as the feisty underdog but in rugby we’re the big bad wolf. Add the stats into it and you get why a lot of people support the underdog most of the time. Though I must say I was on another board we both frequent and the level of anti-NZ vitriol was pretty horrible.

Bismarck is huge because you need guys over the ball in several areas to negate NZ. Louw, Duane and Bismarck can cover the left centre and right sides to take advantage of any isolation of ball carriers. De Jager I think is also critical to have fit due to his physicality-if NZ get remotely close to the quick ball they had on Saturday (I doubt they will though) NZ will definitely take advantage.

The lineout is a conundrum for me. Do SA target this? I imagine on their ball they can initiate a lineout maul penalty lineout and so on sequence, but on NZ ball Coles is very solid and the rest of the pack is accurate too. With Matfield I imagine SA will try to initiate more but I’d say if Ben Smith is on song positionally this could be negated. In which chase becomes all important due to NZ’s runners and support play in broken field. Personally despite NZ’s improvement in this area I’d say NZ would not kick to touch much at all. It not only keeps ball in play (and NZ’s fitness), but that possible maul penalty scenario might not eventuate.

Crockett’s groin might be dicky but he’s been used as a sub mainly. Maybe if they’re not that sure Moody could start and Crockett could sub again. Moody was impressive, but I imagine the Boks would have a lick at the NZ scrum.

If NMS is ruled out I’d kick high to Naholo all day. But Savea is good under the high ball as is Smith-so du Preez or Pollard would have to be spot on.

I’d still attack around fringes early to see if the ABs are cleaning out guys with the same venom as last week but it seems Franks got angry and is finally pulling his weight again.

SA have to jump into an early lead. I think it’s absolutely critical. Get NZ to chase the game and pick them off if they lose shape. But they’re pretty focused. And the thing that was most significant about this weekend was that NZ can have those days when they annihilate teams. But it hasn’t happened in a World Cup for 20 years. This is huge-they did it in a knockout game. They’re getting better at playing these things. SA are 2/5-they have the best WC record. But they must keep focus, and a hell of a line speed to do it. But you guys can no doubt. The last time NZ smashed someone in a WC was a week before you guys put paid to their dreams in Jozi. We definitely know you can do it. That’s why it’s a sad irony for us-all we get for that performance is another game where we’ll have a nervous breakdown-only this time against our greatest foe. Sad because it was a real pleasure to be there.

But either way mate just hope everyone’s fit on both sides. The game needs its best out there. But that’s why I’m more confident this time. The best is there. Carter’s fit and firing. And I reckon he’s on a mission.

It’d have to be the first one. For all the Wallabies’ bluster the stats indicate that they aren’t superior in WCs. Expectation of both teams clouds people’s analysis here.

The Aussies have lost 1 final, 2 semis, 2 QFs and 2 pool games. Not counting the 87 playoff as that wasn’t a live RWC game. England’s exit showed that pool games can be just as live as finals-lose one and it’s knockout from then on.

NZ have lost 1 final, 3 semis and 1 QF. Looks advantage NZ from here-though like most Kiwis it’s either win or nothing for me. So 2-2 and no Aussie advantage.

Though since Aussie have never lost a World Cup game in the UK and no side has defended the trophy NZ shouldn’t have even gotten on the plane should they?

1986 France and Australia had both beaten NZ-the fallout from the Cavaliers tour had divided the country and team and both were only united when NZ started the Cup with the demolition of Italy.

1991 Australia had thumped NZ 21-12 in Sydney that year. They were clearly the best side in world rugby at that point. A 6-3 reverse in an ugly Auckland test (and Fox had to hit a late penalty even then) didn’t negate that fact.

1995 France were actually the favourites as they’d swept NZ the year before. England had also beaten NZ in 1993 and Australia held the Bledisloe. France were very unlucky in the 95 semi and may well have been able to break NZ hearts in the final had Benazzi’s try been given.

1999 NZ had lost five in a row the year before and had just been given their biggest hiding in history-28-7 against Australia in Sydney. The 1999 semi loss wasn’t a choke as NZ would have gotten thumped by Australia in the final. SA were better then as well really.

2003 England were the best team in the world. NZ’s thumpings of Australia and SA away had taken the bookie’s favour but the Poms were the most consistent side in rugby. NZ were just at the end of their horror patch from 98-04.

Will give you the last three but I agree with others who have replied that the comment is pretty lazy. The ABs are always seen as among the favourites but that’s due to their status as the most consistently winning side in sport. But that’s over too much time and too general to ignore the leadup form of other countries. Very dismissive of not only the credentials, but the quality of the other teams.

I think stopping Picamoles is the key here. He can give Les Bleus the go forward needed to allow Parra and Michalak the time to make good decisions. Basteraud is on the bench which can be very dangerous close to the line. Dusautoir will make a stupid number of tackles again but he needs to be kept on the floor and the support needs to clean anyone out. NZ also need to form as many rucks as quickly as possible to establish an offside line, and kick to find space on Spedding’s weaker side. If they can do that and gain parity in the scrum they should be able to keep the French uninspired. You just have to keep your foot on the throat with France, which is why NZ have dished out so many hidings to them.

It could be a massacre or a boilover. Just can’t pick this one with the history. I’m flying to Cardiff tonight and no amount of reassurance from any party will stop me from being a quivering mess at the Millenium. Just hope that it will be free of controversy.

Hey Bilt. Looks like fate has made the decisions Meyer was afraid to and now the Boks have not only their best team out on the park, but one on a mission after the first game. It’d be an interesting question to pose-would you take a WC win if it included a loss to Japan? Most would say yes but I presume countries without the history of excellence of SA-I must admit I’d be unsure as my OCD nature would like NZ to keep the number of countries they have lost to at six and no more..

They are scarily good now and look complete and matchups with Australia and/or NZ will be classics as all three look to have minimal weaknesses. I’d say at present the All Blacks have the most obvious chinks. De Jager and Etzebeth are a phenomenal pair as are de Allende and Kriel, but to have the combination of du Preez and Pollard between them is gravy. To have the world’s best decision making halfback inside Pollard lets the kid play instinctively and if he does that he’ll go to the line and hold players.

It is still the most open World Cup ever. NZ hasn’t fired a shot, France are France, the other two best WC nations are really starting to excel, Argentina are looking seriously good and in my mind are a semi finalist, whilst despite massive losses Ireland and Wales are showing how far sheer bloody mindedness can take you. I think Wales will find less of a threat from SA and might be able to deal with the Boks better-after all the Boks will attack you more with physicality and Wales’ losses have been more in the backs-look for Dan Lydiate to have a big one.

Wales have a definite chance but coming up against a still wounded SA side whose mentality has resorted to “F**k this, we’re going to smash everyone now” is going to be one of their biggest challenges in history and will make the Dragons a throughly deserved semifinalist should they prevail. But if they don’t front, they’ll join the list of countries to get a hiding from the wounded beast.

I’d say the NZ and French teams would be the biggest anomalies there. France because, well, you know what they’re like, and NZ because it almost seems that they’re not at the races. Seems to most they’re keeping powder dry and they’ve been quoted as saying that they’ve simulated certain scenarios.

Aussies how confident would you feel about Argentina in a semi? Preferred to an injury hit Ireland? Both are playing well but the final definitely beckons.

I can see Carter trying to enter that club on Saturday.

I don’t think they’ll drop Kaino. Wouldn’t want to either-Picamoles is massive and with Basteraud having such a low centre of gravity we’ll need to keep the gainline in check. Fofana’s a brilliant player but we have to cut ball to him off at source i.e. Parra and Michalak. Cane was decidedly cynical against Tonga and none too subtle-we can’t afford people to be that loose. I’d like Vito to be the impact sub as his physicality has improved tremendously and his sevens skills will be really useful when the game opens up after 60.

Dusautoir for me isn’t on McCaw’s Pocock’s nor Warburton’s level of pilfering-he’s just got an engine the equal of McCaw and doesn’t stop tackling. There are better threats over the ball and we need to get our support there to clean out. Owen Franks needs to get angry.

When a French team gets inspired I’ve never seen an issue with fitness. Sometimes they looked so disinterested on Sunday that they were using the Irish for tackling practice.

New Zealand have been so passive at the breakdown that it has been a concern. If they have simulated this then good luck to them-with guys like Basteraud and Picamoles inspired they gainline battle will be beyond a level they have experienced at this tournament. Aaron Smith has had the ball on a platter most of the time and the backs haven’t made sufficient use of that platform to improve their accuracy. He won’t get that ride against France.

I think this game is huge for McCaw. Could be the biggest test of his career. He’s been outplayed by Dusautoir (hell everybody was) in the last two WC knockout games between the sides and needs to win the battle there. Carter’s kicking game will be needed to pin back France’s rampaging forwards too. Weepu’s ill judged hack into Trinh-Duc’s arms resulted in the only time France looked like scoring a try in the 2011 final, there was nothing subtle about their approach then and I imagine they’ll try to roll over the top of NZ again. Though with Fofana they do possess a rapier if they can get him the ball.

Either way, there’s no more foxing now. Time to show every card you have-goes for all teams. Otherwise you sod off home. France can win this. Big time. But what comforts NZ supporters is that they can also get smashed.

Aussie are definitely favourites based on current form but as we all know it only takes one flat patch and your hopes and dreams can go down the toilet. But it was a massive victory-attacking England’s strength and turning it into a weakness. Australia have long been champions of finding ways to minimise damage from their weaknesses and being their strengths into the game. So they knew if England won the forward battle at least their edge in the backs and breakdown they’d still have a real good show. England on the other hand looked utterly bereft of ideas once their anticipated dominance failed to materialise. They put in an honest shift, and in Joseph and Watson possessed players capable of making serious inroads to help set platforms for onslaughts, but had no idea how to bring them into the game more. Brown is a bloody good player but he had a mare with two massive errors directly impacting the scoreline. Lancaster should have conceded defeat with Farrell and hauled him off. Not tried out the two pivot tactic. Australia and NZ do that bloody well but they’ve had the games to bed it in. Hooper and Pocock were magnificent and the game totally flowed in their favour. England knew they had to open it up to make any inroads, and with the game gradually being played wider the two fetchers had a field day, being accurate enough to pounce on any error in isolation and body positions, and instilling England with so much fear of getting turned over that Joseph and Watson were not sighted anywhere near enough.

Congratulations Wallabies, the performance of the tournament so far.

I’d love to see Gatland pick Warburton and Tipuric to combat Pooper. Would be fascinating.

The Cup isn’t won in that pool game. In fact, should Wales lose to Fiji a loss may not end England’s hopes. I don’t agree that a pool game in 2015 is more important than a final in 2003 no matter if it’s do or die for one team. As in the final it’s do or die for both. I don’t see how that view can be considered naive.

If you don’t win a game you choke-doesn’t matter how much pressure was on you didn’t cope with it. That goes for every game in sport.

Disagree that the stakes are increased really-they’re even at worst. England got the box of chocolates at the end and this is still a pool game not a final.

Well done Namibia. They did well in limiting the damage and reminded me of the All Whites in the 2010 Football World Cup. Defend like your lives depend on it, shut as much down as you can and if you get a chance or two throw the kitchen sink at it.

I was apoplectic watching the game last night and I think part of it was because I’m worried this fiasco will repeat itself in the knockout stages. Kickoff was at 8pm Irish time and I walked out of the pub the instant the final whistle blew-which was just before 10. That is a debacle. The game was dreadful anyway, with NZ opting to practice their set piece and a structured game instead of running it from everywhere but not being accurate enough in the face of tenacious defence. But the flow of the game was not the only thing that led to the margin being a lot closer than it should. Due to the stoppages Namibia had enough gas in the tank to go the full 80. The All Blacks rule the last 20 traditionally as their skill level and fitness tell. But this advantage that they work so hard to get was completely negated by Poite’s whistle. This happened the whole game, but the second half ball was in play for 12 minutes. 12! If the ABs find themselves in a hole in a knockout match and this goes on the chances of them getting out will diminish drastically. They sacrifice a lot for their approach-they are not one of the bigger teams and they often lose the collision in the first half especially, only to pick up as the game goes on. Without this advantage to call on in the second half they may as well have a couple of salad dodgers in the pack to specialise in set piece. They have to bleat about it now and get it addressed.

What New Zealand can fix is their intensity and communication. NMS is promising all right but he falls over a hell of a lot and often his teammates aren’t in sync with what he’s trying to do. They know SBW so are more confident there but hopefully the more they practice the more NMS can get in tune with his support runners. SBW is outstanding at present-would have Nonu start but his impact has been fantastic. Fekitoa was ineffective last night strangely-though I don’t think he was entirely to blame. If you look at his feet at the point of contact when he was bumped off you’ll see a teammate bump him and put him off balance. Easy meat unfortunately but it happens a lot-a lot of players get slated for missing tackles when people banging into them can often be to blame.

The biggest worry to me is NZ’s starting props. Owen Franks and Woodcock are not world class any more and they’re not playing with the intensity that made them world class. They’re not destructive enough in the scrum and they’re taking far too long to get up after tackles. Unfortunately the other props are far better as impact players-see how well Fa’aumuina is playing-so Hansen hopefully will give them a kick up the jacksie.

Sounds arrogant but I think an 70-80 point win was par. If NZ had cut loose from the start it could have been 100. 70 maybe since they wanted to get some set piece practice in but Namibia’s guts and canny ways of slowing everything down (including Poite’s infuriating permission of this) put paid to any semblance of that.

Felt like the 07 QF. Slag NZ off, give great credit to Namibia, and do your nut in about the officiating.

The difference though? Well NZ have three games at least to get it right.