Good article.

It is worth noting that in their four games, the All Blacks have won by at least 10 points each time, gained 3 bonus points while conceding none, and scored 25 tries (more than any other country thus far) to their opponents’ 3.

Would any other team be facing the questions the All Blacks have, had they achieved these statistics?

Tried that in the Pacific Nations Cup and Churchill Cup (North America), among others, a few years back. The success of that scheme can be judged by the fact that these teams no longer play in those competitions.

With the Six Nations, I was meaning that there would actually be two divisions of four nations each, with p/r between the two. So on current form, it would be England, Wales, France and Ireland in one, with Scotland, Italy, Georgia and Romania in the other. I’m not a fan of permanent members, if they can’t hack it, they can’t hack it.

As for the money issue… While I see your point, it is one that seems to lead into a dead-end alley. It’s a short step from “grow where the money is” to “money above growth”, and that way madness and the ICC lie. I’m not saying we shouldn’t target places where there are clear opportunities, but, to take your example of Germany, the thing that excites me is the pool of potential players, not the revenue. After all, if profitability is too large a factor, Australian rugby might have to be let go ;).

On a more serious note, FIFA strike me as a better example to follow in terms of growth. While their horrendous corruption is better avoided, what is also undeniable is that they have succeeded in growing the game basically globally, even in areas where money can be hard to come by. It would be nice to see rugby in a similar place.

An issue I have thought a bit about. Here are some of the things I would like to happen.

In Europe, I would like to see the 6 Nations split, with Scotland and Italy playing Georgia and Romania. Promotion/relegation could be an option.

In the south, Super Rugby should have taken a Pacific based team, not a Japanese one. Perhaps a similar system to the European one is an option, but I don’t see that working so well down here.

All of the 10 Nations (RC + 6 Nations) should be required to play a country outside that grouping once per year. They all tour each other often enough, there is no reason why they can’t have a stopover at a Pacific Rim or Eastern European or wherever destination. Perhaps there should be some ruling to ensure that they just go for the same ones over and over.

The governance structure of World Rugby needs to be seriously overhauled. There is no good reason, to pick just one example, for Scotland getting two votes on the board, while Italy gets one and the three PI nations get one between the three of them. A much wider range of nations need to be added, rather than just having the big boys and the next lot down.

While the top 20 or so countries are getting closer, it seems increasingly difficult to break into this group. Think about the current World Cup and who would replace the teams currently in it. The options seem to be Russia, maybe Portugal, Spain or even Zimbabwe, but that seems to be it. Growth needs to happen in more places than just Europe.

Agree totally. Rattue has a record of awful predictions and assessments.

My personal favourites of his are that the All Blacks could never win a World Cup under Graham Henry (written after the 2007 edition), and that the Highlanders should be replaced by a team based in North Harbour.

While I see your point, as a NZer I would note that we just played a second string team against Namibia for reasons that aren’t much better. This is hardly a new problem either: remember 2007 and Scotland’s second string team against the ABs, England resting Wilkinson against SA, or the ABs playing a different XV in basically every game.

It’s hard to justify denying second-tier nations the same practices the top ones use, even if their reasoning is adjusted for their goals.

What I would prefer to see is a “bowl” knockout from the current format i.e. the third and fourth placed team in each pool play a matching knockout to the cup. At stake could be, say, two automatic qualification spots for the next cup (if the current number is reduced). Reducing the tournament is not the answer.

Was refering to SA resting players against Japan. Sorry about ambiguous pronouns.

Make no mistake, I want Japan to qualify, I just see it being unlikely.

Let’s say Japan have a 50-50 chance of winning both games. I make that a 25% chance at best, and this is not counting whether Scotland beat Samoa. If they do so, then bonus points start becoming a factor, and Japan doesn’t have much in that column.

I don’t think that Scotland will take Samoa lightly. They will be well aware that this is a game they could lose, and will be preparing with that game as a key match, regardless of how they go against South Africa. I also don’t buy the theory that Samoa will have the upper hand against Scotland if they have nothing to play for. History has shown that teams are stronger when they have everything to play for, which would seem to favour Scotland if anyone.

But here’s hoping…

I had not read that particular piece, but have now rectified this.

The comparison they make is an interesting one, but I feel they still gloss over a few points. Wood’s action is highlighted as “reckless”, but I have seen many a player try a hack through with an opponent fast approaching. Most of these have resulted in no injury, and there is a clear benefit to doing so (that does not involved an injured opponent). And as you put it, the foul by Wood was unintentional.

Galarza, on the other hand, deliberately grabbed the head of Retallick, and also denied putting his hand in Retallick’s eye (which is not mentioned by the article, but is in the World Rugby description). There is little argument for doing this, and the article basically glosses over this fact.

While it often seems unfair that injury does not play a major role in determining the punishment, there are good reasons for this. After all, should every player who has attempted a hack-through in a tight spot be cited? The lack of flexibility is also cited, but this to me is preferable to the alternative as it ensures sentences can not be altered for less healthy reasons.

Yeah, they would realistically have to beat Samoa, and then the US with a bonus point (they will be doing well to get one over Samoa), to have complete control over their destiny. If that happened, it would be fantastic, but I suspect it may just be a bridge too far…

Mind you, the only team that has complete control over what happens to them in that pool now is Scotland, and they have two games they could easily lose to finish.

It certainly has made this pool extremely interesting. Who wants balanced pools now? (apart from the English)

If we knew, we wouldn’t need a World Cup in the first place 🙂

I have done these things already, along with reading the decision from World Rugby.

To an extent. On the other hand, they have done everything expected of them thus far, and there is plenty of time in the next two games to sort out any issues.

Look for Slade to get 35-40 min against either Georgia or Tonga. Otherwise, the execution things just need some game-time.

It’s also worth remembering that we have had our toughest game already.

True, but at this stage, Japan have to beat both Samoa and USA. Both are winnable, but not guaranteed. True they get the best draw now, but it seems fractional. There is much less difference between 7 to 10 day turnarounds than to 4 to 7 day ones, so I don’t know how much that helps them.

Also bear in mind they will be playing the top team of all their opponents, when SA was resting several key players.

Pool D was very much “flip a coin” territory for me.

With regards to Galarza… I simply can’t see how you accidentally eye-gouge a player. I get what you are saying with regards to consequence, but intention matters as well. Certainly care should be promoted ( and thus Brown should perhaps have received some small punishment), but drawing equivalence between the two also worries me.

High tackles are similar. Yes they are dangerous, and yes some are deliberate and should be punished, but a high tackle could conceivable be the result of a poorly-executed legal tackle. Again, there isn’t any real way to accidentally eye-gouge a player.

I’m not entirely sure of Pool A either, but Wales have an awful record against SH teams, which for me tips the balance.

i’m personally still not sure what an expanded WC would look like. Your suggestion is one option, but this is the organisation that came up with the 1999 format.

Enjoying this set of articles :).
One thing I would dispute is that this is one of the weakest pools. I would argue it is simply one of the most straightforward.
Looking at this from the perspective of the top team in each pool, Argentina is probably weaker than the second-best teams in Pools A and D (not by as much in D), and is stronger than, say, Samoa in Pool B.
Tonga is comparable to all the third best teams, with the exception of Wales.
Georgia is certainly comparable to Canada or Japan, although weaker than Fiji.
Namibia is probably the softest out of the comparable teams, but it doesn’t really make much difference at this point to the top teams.
So, I doubt any team outside of Pool A would take the chance, if offered, to swap one of their opponents for their Pool C counterpart.

Samoa are not soft, but they are the second strongest team in the pool.
If you had to choose which team out of Australia (or England), Samoa, Argentina or France to play for top spot, it doesn’t strike me as a particularly tough choice.
Also don’t forget that Samoa has never beaten South Africa. There’s a first time for everything, but it would take a brave man to say it will happen in the World Cup.

This Kiwi thinks that the Boks will win the whole thing.
The biggest hurdle for them will be a tough quarterfinal after a soft group.

Easy to forget for us Kiwis when our toughest pool match was in Edinburgh and our only knockout game in Cardiff.

Here is what I have, based on the Rugby Championship

NZ: Own ball won 25/26 96.2%. Opposing ball won 2/20 10%
Aus: Own ball won 15/16 93.8%. Opposing ball won 2/21 9.5%
SA: Own ball won 17/21 81.0%. Opposing ball won 1/24 4.2%
Arg: Own ball won 16/20 80%. Opposing ball won 5/18 27.8% (!)

So NZ won the most of their own ball. They turned over less than Argentina, about as much as Australia, and more than South Africa, so it does take into account tightheads.

I don’t have stats on scrum penalties per say. I have counted the tota number of penalties for the props and here is what I have. I don’t know what each penalty was given for however.

NZ: Props conceded 8 penalties, opposing props conceded 4
Aus: Props conceded 7 penalties, opposing props conceded 10
SA: Props conceded 8 penalties, opposing props conceded 11
Arg: Props conceded 11 penalties, opposing props conceded 9.

So, based on that somewhat unscientific analysis, you are broadly correct. While NZ props conceded a comparable number of penalties compared with their RC counterparts, their opposition conceded far less.

How much of a concern this is, I honestly couldn’t say, but Hansen will be planning to counter any perceived weakness.

I’m not quite sure how having the best scrum success in the RC translates into having the worst scrum…

T-Man, its 5/7, France also failed to make the final in 2007.
Even then, its complicated. In 1987 and 1991, there were also multiple hosts. Since only five teams have ever made the final (one being South Africa, who didn’t play in these tournaments) and two of these were partially hosting each tournament (Aus and NZ in 87, Eng and France in 91), you could argue that it would be more suprising if a host didn’t make the finals simply on those grounds.

I don’t think the front row is so much of a problem for us (best scrum success in the RC this year), but I would agree with the other points and add one of my own: An injury to Savea. While the replacements are able, they don’t quite offer the same point of difference that he does to the back three, making the backline look a whole lot less potent. Piutau could potentially replace him long term, but if he picks up a 1-2 week niggle, they may be vulnerable.

Yep. The record for home teams is as follows.
1987 – NZ won at home. Australia (playing all games at home bar the 3rd-4th playoff) finish 4th
1991 – England finish second, Scotland (same as Australia in 1987) finish 4th, Ireland and France (all games at home bar Ire-Scot) quarterfinalists, Wales (all games at home) group stage.
1995 – South Africa win at home
1999 – Wales quarterfinalists. France finish second playing pool matches at home, but elimination rounds away. Scotland and England (all matches at home bar Eng-SA) quarterfinalists. Ireland (all matches at home bar quarterfinal playoffs) eliminated at playoffs.
2003 – Australia finish second
2007 – France finish 4th. Scotland (2 home matches) quarterfinalist. Wales (2 home matches) group stage.
2011 – NZ win at home.

Incidentally, South Africa are the only team thus far to win World Cups both home (1995) and away (2007).