Yeah I saw that article. Good God there were some strange selections by some of the “experts”. GP’s were some of the best though.
I’ll address these from the front to back.
The props might seem strange, but an additional argument is that if we take 4 props, they will be playing in every single game.
100% agree on Laulala over Faumuina.
3 locks is an interesting idea… but I’m not convinced. We tried that in 2007 and while it was overshadowed by other selection issues, it could well have been exposed if, say, Keith Robinson was injured. And this was when we had Rueben Thorne, who at least had some experience covering lock. I will reserve full judgement until Saturday, but I don’t see Kaino doing the same at the moment. I think Thrush has to go on the basis of being the least bad option. It would be fair to say that he isn’t the only AB who has looked rusty this season, but who did well last year.
Loose forwards – same as above.
Halfbacks – NO! We need three. Not taking a third will mean that Smith and Perenara will (again) be playing in every single game. We need a third, even if they are only playing against Georgia and Namibia, to give the top two a rest. Maybe TKB, maybe Weber, but not another outside back. I don’t want to have to see Carter playing there for the first time since three WCs ago.
I also don’t like the idea of throwing in Dagg as an additional outside back alongside NMS. To me, Dagg is either starting or not playing, and I’m not convinced that our best starting back three (or the second or third best, for that matter) includes him. For that reason, I don’t really see why he would be included.
But certainly some interesting comments and good ideas.

Interesting squad.
Only cosmetic changes to it. I think that Vito will have to play well on Saturday or Messam will take that spot.
Slade will be picked over Sopoaga due to his experience. I would also prefer to see him on the bench ahead of Barrett due to his superior goalkicking.
I would love to see Crotty picked over Williams, but will accept that that is never going to happen.
Agree with your comments on the back three. Another option would be to start Barrett at fullback and move Smith to the wing. If this were to happen that would be another strike against Dagg.

That would be interesting. I could get behind that as a concept.

As a NZ cricket fan, I hope this doesn’t happen. There has been a large amount of time, money and effort invested into our domestic competition(s) by NZC in recent years, with the aim of freshening these up, turning them into more professional leagues and making them better noticed in our media. This has been somewhat successful, and the World Cup can’t hurt either. Sticking two arbitrary teams in the Aussie competition can only undermine these efforts.
That said, with the death of the Champions’ League, I would not be suprised to see NZC look for additional sources of revenue and try to make this proposal happen.

Easier said that done Grapeseed. The Wallabies are going to have to make sure that they kick the ball between the posts and deposit the ball over the All Blacks’ try line to achieve this. Past Wallaby teams have struggled to execute this aspect of their game at the same level as the All Blacks.

In some cases, this may be more entertaining than the game itself. My suggestion would be to replace the Masterchef bit with a boxing ring 🙂
More seriously, the only bit I would object to in Harry’s proposal is the shortened time to submit. In some circumstances (e.g. competition finals) teams have good reasons for not submitting complaints immediately and it seems unfair that incidents in these matches would essentially not be examined on a technicality.

To me, this is a bigger reason why this is a crucial WC. To be blunt, the ABs are not the only ones involved in the same thing happening over and over again. Of the 28 semifinal spots over the years, 24 have been taken by five nations: NZ, SA, Australia, England and France. None of these teams (excluding SA in 87 and 91) have ever failed to qualify for the knockout rounds, ensuring that since 1995, there has been in effect three quarterfinal spots between the other teams.
I would love to see some new countries upset this status quo in both the quarters and the semis, and show rugby is a genuinely competitive sport. Otherwise an excellent article Armand 🙂

🙂 Well played.

On a more serious note, what about an idea, where a ban only applies to a comparable or higher level of play?
E.g. A 3 match ban in, say, Super Rugby can only be served in Super Rugby, international or NRC/NPC/Currie Cup etc. matches.

I have little sympathy for Hooper being the victim of cheating of this kind. In the Highlanders-Waratahs semi, Hooper was clearly pulling the jersey of Sopoaga during the Buckman try and was not penalised in any form. The comments (not yours personally) when this was pointed out were dismissive, basically saying everyone does it.

Fair enough. That said, if winning records were all that counted, we’d have won more than 2 cups. 🙁

True, but at this level, all the forwards should really be valid lifting options. What I see as a weakness is a lack of jumpers, making it easier to target those Wallabies that can.

Romania have always been there or thereabouts (e.g. giving Scotland a massive fright in 2011), but I don’t see them getting over the line against France or Ireland. Italy maybe… but the Azzurri will also be on their guard against this.

Thanks guys. This aspect of international rugby has been a pet peeve of mine for a while…

I consider it 3-2: I dislike disputing games on the basis of the ref and I don’t really count the 3rd-4th playoff on the basis that it is a completely meaningless match. I would still agree that the ABs should be considered favourites and that France shouldn’t hold too many demons for the current group of players. Still, if I crash on a corner while biking, I’m going to be a bit nervous when I come to that corner again…

I did have a little chuckle yesterday when you suggested the Australian/SMH 😀 In all seriousness, I’m flattered but doubt I would be up to standard.
Like the previous replies, I do think Hansen is smarter than you give him credit for, just not afraid to speak his mind. There isn’t much he can do about the TMOs, but there will be a maul defence in there that we haven’t seen. I was more meaning what happens if it occurs to another nation. While he was criticized at the time for his comments, I suspect we will hear a number similar to Hansen’s if, say, England beats Wales on an iffy TMO call. You can argue that the comments were designed to maximise NZ’s advantage, but that is true of a lot of national coaches.

I can only see three teams meeting these requirements: the Boks, the ABs and England. Ireland will push hard, but winning the whole thing just seems to be a bridge too far. England have arguably the best draw of the Pool A nations, and a quarter against Samoa is probably the best any team could realistically hope for.

That’s certainly interesting re. France. Say what you will about them, but they always seem to peak come RWC time. I also don’t think that they will actively try to take on the ABs in the quarters, but Ireland are looking strong and the French would probably deal better with the worse quarterfinal…

I certainly will be watching the Aus-NZ game for that tactic. I have my doubts that the Wallabies will succeed though, as I expect that the AB brains trust has identified this as a weakness as well and have adopted countermeasures.
The problem with using Skelton in those mauls for the Aussies is that it comes at the expense of lineout versatility. If you want to stop a maul, stealing the ball off the throw is as good a method as any. I can’t help but wonder whether this will end up inconveniencing the Wallabies more than their opponents.

I don’t buy the theory that France have only one good game in them at a World Cup. In 2011 for instance, after they destroyed England in their quarterfinal, many predicted NZ would have an easy time in the final. We all know that that didn’t happen.
Still, as Connor said, an upset after a loss to Ireland is not a bad bet.

Interesting points. Looking into it, Danny Care appears to be the back-up halfback, while either Kyle Eastmond or Alex Goode filling in at fullback. Care seems to be reasonably good, although he has problems with off-field discipline. I suspect Goode will be the reserve fullback, and while he isn’t up to Brown’s standard, he should make a reasonable fist of it.

I’ll agree that if Australia holds the forwards, then they have a good chance of beating England. The issue is that I quite simply don’t see this happening. That said, should they beat both Wales and England, then yes, a quarterfinal against (say) Samoa is definitely worthwhile. I really can’t see either SA or NZ on that side of the draw, as the most likely way for this to occur would be for Argentina to beat the All Blacks.

As regards to Pool B, you missed Scotland-Japan and Samoa-USA. Since these games would have to be drawn, I don’t see your equal points scenario happening. Still you are dead right about the unpredictability of this pool.

I think the test for SA will be the quarter-final. They will either lose at this stage to a more battle-ready Australia, England or Wales, or they will win the entire thing.

Georgia, Japan and Italy would be my picks for the most likely banana skins this cup. I would not be suprised to see Georgia beat Tonga and claim automatic qualification for 2019. Japan and Italy have both underperformed for so long, a win has to be inevitable sooner or later.

I don’t think Argentina is as vulnerable as you seem to. Their recent results may be unflattering, but I don’t think their problems against NZ and Australia can be as easily exploited by Tonga or Georgia.

But a good article and an extremely interesting premise.

Good article John, and one I tend to agree with.

One point you missed, and which Taylorman has begun to allude to is the difference between the players in, say, 1998 and the present day. In 1998, it seemed that the top players were spread out among the three Super 12 teams, thus diluting the performances of the overall teams. This meant that a quality side could still be picked easily despite the lack of Super Rugby success.

Fast forward to the present day. During the two semi-final matches in particular, its hard to say that the Wallaby front-runners stuck their hands up for selection. With the exception of a few positions (7 being an obvious example), it is hard to argue that the players are genuinely on the same level as their overseas competitors. This doesn’t mean that the Wallabies can’t win the RWC, but as Taylorman said, they will have to be very clever about how they do it. Does Cheika have the tactical nous to pull this off? Time will tell…

There is certainly something extremely satisfying in watching a group of individuals who will never receive top honours do an extremely good job week in and week out. It is much easier to relate to than the all-star forward pack.

Absolutely. That day is still some way off though 🙂

Thanks. I agree with regards to Nonu and Conrad Smith, especially since this is one of the only trophies on offer to them that they won’t win. Seems a bit rough after such a good regular season.