I agree England will be the real challenge for Ireland. They are a big team and they could load it with big ball carriers (Lawrence, Tuilagi, Barbeary) which would cause any team really problems. They are still trying to find their game plan so it may be a year or so early but I fully expect them to put it up to Ireland. Scotland unfortunately seem not to have the mental fortitude yet to do what they should. After 40 mins in both of the first two matches they looked like they should come away easily from them and they didn’t which is a bad sign. This weekends game is going to be a big one for them in terms of how their year looks at the end. France have gone back a step but i think they haven’t yet become a bad team. Something is not right currently as players who have form club wise aren’t bringing it through to this. I reckon they should start Le Garrec instead of Lucu who is a great 9 but I think he’s actually possibly too pragmatic for France. They do much better with speed from the bottom of the ruck and with Le Garrec bouncing back to the blind side and carrying the ball a couple steps is much more in the mould of what Dupont does and works for them. When he has come on in each game their tempo went up a level and that is what they need. Italy have what could be a great backline but unfortunately just don’t have the forwards yet. The backline is littered with strong runners and some skilful players most of whom will be around possibly for the best part of 10 years but they just need to find some ball carriers up front. They will get there soon I think but I’ve been saying that the last 3 years so I’m probably not the one to ask. Also their u20 winger looks a great prospect (see game against ireland) and will further add to that backline

Bit hypocritical there given in the quarter final they won NZ had less possession, passes, metres made, linebreaks and territory than Ireland. In fact what they did do was kick the ball away far more than Ireland did. Weird for such a high risk running rugby sort of team who was playing against the kick heavy skill light northerners

The whole traitor thing seems a bit strange as a remark. Firstly there are heaps of All blacks who were born overseas, do you consider them to be traitors? Secondly his mother is Irish and I assume he’d have a lot of pride in that. If you moved to another country and had children there would you not raise them to have pride in NZ (or wherever you’re from). I don’t understand how he can be a traitor to a country system that didn’t rate him at all. It would be blind loyalty that would’ve kept him there and look how much better off he is now that he left

Also I think it’s probably a good time to talk about the Leinster issue in Ireland rugby. Firstly I don’t think it is really appropriate that so much of the team is made up of Leinster players. It shows an over reliance on them and their structures and I feel is an easy way for a coach to get results without necessarily having to put that much thought into it. Secondly i think that it also gives teams a blueprint as to how to beat Ireland. Leinster are a team that have dominated for seasons and yet can’t win the Heineken cup due to the fact that a very good physical team can figure them out and beat them. They don’t really work off a plan B due to the fact that plan A works so well. The issue for Ireland is the same as we saw against NZ. NZ defence got on top and by around the 50 to 60th minute you could tell what they were doing wasn’t yielding results but they had no plan B. I was hoping they’d just take a deep breath and actually try to win the gain line rather than continuing with going coast to coast but they didn’t do it.
The really impressive thing about SA is the fact that their team can vary so much. All week people wonder what sort of team and game plan they’ll put together because they have tested different players at the top level. Imagine if Ireland were able to throw a curve ball against NZ and bring on McCluskey and Coombes and start getting go forward ball in a completely different way to their norm? Club teams restrict themselves more to structure because they play together so much that really well done it can work brilliantly. However at international level you have to figure out who you’re best men are and then try and figure out ways of playing that might suit that because you just don’t usually have the time to bed in game plans and structures where everything is trained and learned off perfectly. Apologies this is so long but I just don’t think we use our pool of players appropriately. We’re picking our structure and then our team rather than anything else

I think you’re comparisons are a bit biased between those irish and NZ players. You’re picking a player with 7 international caps over Porter (57) which seems a bit bizarre. I think Ireland props have gone off the boil a little in the last two years, Furlong had a couple injuries and I don’t think he has hit the peaks of two to three years ago where he was very widely considered best in the world but I wouldn’t go throwing him out yet. I also would be choosing Ringrose over Ioane as a 13 because I think Ringrose is actually quite a good 13 whereas Ioane is a bit more of a winger turned 13 who I (and quite a few NZ fans) believe can be a weakness when playing in tough games. I also don’t really see how Doris conversation is all of a sudden laughable because he has been up there with the best in Europe the last two season and just because Ireland generally shit themselves come quarter final time doesn’t really mean he’s gone off the boil.
I really do hope Robertson does as well as people hope he will because it will breathe life into NZ rugby, which I really think they need. The next 10 years are gonna be pretty tough for ye because NRL is taking off while SR is going very much off the boil with the Blues now not even sure where they will play next year due to the fact they can’t nearly fill Eden park. This combined with Australia rugby union falling into the abyss will leave NZ feeling pretty isolated and in a situation where they’re fighting a battle to keep player numbers up.

So were most of the Irish team. One game doesn’t put you on team of the year

Team isn’t bad but i think this is probably picked based of the world cup form. Not sure about Mounga but to be fair not many others threw their hands up for 10. I think Kriel was probably more important especially defensively for Boks than Ioane is and Aki definitely 12 given from there by the quarters I think he had something like most metres, most tries and most tackle breaks which was pretty impressive for a 12. The player I think that’s so underappreciated by world rugby and in Europe is Botia. I reckon his interventions in European semi finals and finals the last two years won La Rochelle the competition and he has also been part of the basis for Fiji’s improvement overall. I really think he is up there with the most important players and if only Fiji had more proper games I think he would be on that list

Red cards aren’t just for intention anymore though as they are trying to stop people going in high by having a heavy punishment for even accidental ones that are poorly executed. It’s like if you drive a car carelessly and end up killing someone manslaughter will carry serious jail time. It’s not the intent but they’re trying to get rid of carelessness. I’ve copped about 10 concussions from when I played and most of those were being tackled carelessly. Most weren’t trying to be reckless but they were and at the time you didn’t even see a penalty for them. I obviously am in favour of harsh penalties for this carelessness now as I have to live with the idea in the back of my mind that there could be lasting damage. If giving heavy penalty against carelessness causes younger players to learn to tackle correctly to avoid these contacts then I am OK with some games being ruined (though I don’t think yesterday’s game was ruined) in the meantime

I think you’ll find if they do that then they’ll have to do that for the parents too and then the numbers would go right down. If you had a child and they made you watch a video of Steve Thompson and then explained the risks involved in rugby would you put them playing it?

Saw plenty NZ fans the last week or so complaining about fans of all the other countries and how each time they lost a game it was the refs fault and that they’re just sore losers. I’m not saying that Barnes was faultless but he wasn’t one sided and he wasn’t the losing of the match for Nz, just like the ref wasn’t the losing of the match for any of the others even though each of those teams were able to look to some contentious decisions.

All penalties are subjective at the end of the day. Time on the ball before holding on called, rolling away speed… etc. The calls I think were appropriate as the first was direct head contact and i think the second was more whiplash. The difference between the two wasn’t much but I think that is where the mitigation is. With regard to the 20 Min red card it may work but at the end of the day they are trying very hard to get people to change their tackle technique so I get why they keep it. Remember this may not pay off right now when you’ve players who’ve learned their tackle technique ages ago but the next generation it may dramatically decrease the amount of head contacts. The other thing I think should happen if the 20 minute red card is brought in is that there should be less subs allowed. In general as long as the red card isn’t within the first 20 mins then you could very reasonably say that most players (especially forwards) would’ve been subbed anyway after the 40th minute. Maybe even offer a replacement after 20 mins but it uses up two or so of your subs so that the team itself is still getting punished somewhat without ruining the spectacle

4:1 pass to kick ratio in bone dry conditions. If it had been anything like it was yesterday then I think you would’ve seen a lower ratio.
In response to your duty to the game I don’t think a team should decide not to play with their strengths just to keep people entertained. The SA duty primarily is to their country and to that end the duty is to win. It’s on world rugby to create laws that keep the game flowing.

Don’t be naive. NZ were very clinical with their tries, with two of the three coming basically from their own half with minimal pressure built but they weren’t there to throw the ball about by any stretch of the imagination. NZ had less linebreaks, less territory, less possession and less than half the amount of passes also. What they did have more of was tackles, kicks and fortunately for them tries and points but don’t try pretending they’re the gods of 15 man rugby when they’ve so far only pulled that out when playing average to poor teams. SA also played 15 man rugby when they played Romania, it just so happens when playing big teams in knockout games pressure rugby is still the way to go. I guess we’ll see whether NZ bring a pressure based game next weekend or will they throw the ball about. In the meantime I’ll let this here just so you can make sure of my claims.
https://www.rugbypass.com/live/ireland-vs-new-zealand/stats/

Interesting comment. Ireland definitely didn’t lose because of the ref. After that match I actually saw more kiwis giving out about the ref than I did Irish. I think the thing you’re showing though is that basically every team will have some fans who will give out about the ref if they lose a tight game as the calls that were missed are what people hold onto in those situations in order to try and make themselves believe they could’ve won it. I guess we’ll see next weekend whether SA or NZ also like to blame the ref if they lose. Though from the comments I’ve seen so far by both sets of fans on the odds on Wayne Barnes or Reynal reffing it then we definitely will have another group of fans whining

It’s interesting to say that given that when it came down to a big game NZ actually just didn’t play much rugby at all and instead put everything into defending. Granted Ireland didn’t have enough going forward that day but to say NZ are playing 15 man rugby when they’ve only done that against minnows doesn’t really hold truth. I mean everyone throws it about when they are playing without fear of losing. No point in trying to claim that Argentina were more of a test than they were seeing as they were beaten soundly by a 14 man England.

How are you claiming SA are undeserving of getting into the final. They at least have got there by playing most of the top 6 teams in the world whereas NZ have only beaten Ireland to get there. Arguably SA deserve it a hell of a lot more. Also I note that you say England produced a game plan to beat them and yet SA still won. I think that is also the sign of a team that is worthy finalists

I think maybe he’s right though that they’re underdogs. NZ have really only won one hard game to this point, the others teams either lay down in front of them or they lost (to France though it wasn’t really an attrition game). SA on the other hand have gone through the top 4 in Europe and come out the other side after a battle. At the end of the day Scotland probably would’ve put points on that Argentinian outfit, just like Emgland did with 14 men on the pitch so don’t think that win counts for too much. If anything is in their favour it’s probably that they’re well rested and are to be fair doing the job decently well now but if it comes down to an arm wrestle (which it probably will) then you’d expect SA to win as long as they’ve enough in the tank

It’s funny to think that some people were of the opinion that ireland and France felt overly confident pre the QF and yet people are now wondering whether coaches should rest players for a world cup semi final. Reel it in a bit. Ya they may take people off early if winning by loads but the idea of changing to a weaker team from the off reeks of arrogance. If any other team were considering this you’d be all over them

Ya for sure. Complete domination. Those games were a boring watch due to the utter domination of SH teams. Maybe next time the world cup should be only SH teams as it would make it much more interesting

Also mistakes by players are expected and how opposition score. Ie the aim of the game. Referees are there usually to try and ensure its a level playing field so their mistakes are not in any way comparable to those of players.

Te Maire I think is a decent player and better than Metcalfe when it comes down to it in terms of ball playing but unfortunately the left side attack is obviously much weaker than right. Metcalfe was strong coming off breakinf ball however he never actually had the left side attack working coherently in my opinion. It’s an area to work on for the warriors but with RTS coming in next year I would imagine for Pompey then it may improve. I think Ford is a great player for what he does (80 mins and tackle his heart out with some decent carries) he’s still not at the level of top teams. I personally would have Curran there as a line runner over Ford as it gives them punch on both sides. The warriors attack this year was obviously imbalanced as some teams can be with one dominant half but the other side didn’t have the bodies to work with either. All told though this is a great start for a coach at a club (rookie or not) as he’s turned them from a wooden spoon prospect to a team with passion, rugby IQ and spirit. I hope they continue it and with the two (so far) signings I reckon it could sure up some positions (don’t think I’ve seen a player hia more than Egan and Chanel is a more similar player) I reckon they might make top 8 again next year

Do think the forward pass came at a pivotal moment. Warriors had steadied the ship and started winning the territory battle when it occurred, putting them three tries behind and feeling aggrieved. Player unfortunately have to be so mentally strong to not make bad decisions after a decision so badly wrong like that and unfortunately again the warriors did just that. After that try they gave away a couple stupid penalties and a yellow card that they probably needn’t be in the position to give away. I also think that staggs penalty for early contact v pompey was probably more of a try stopping try than the one the other way around, however pompeys one was ruled 10 in the bin. I assume this is because Staggs contact is more a reaction but it still doesn’t negate the fact that had he not done that it would’ve been a straight forward try. At the end of the day the broncos were better but the forward pass came at an incredibly important moment. Anyone who says that the warriors didn’t lose by just the 6 points had probably never played the sport before in their lives. The only other thing I noticed is the ref probably wanted the game to flow so didn’t really call slowing down at the ruck. Broncos did this and unfortunately warriors were slow to do it which compounded their misfortunes. In the second half only Tohu Harris took the coaches advice and tried to slow down ruck ball but that looked almost like as much fatigue as smarts. The warriors needed to react to the refereeing and they didn’t soon enough. Plenty for them to work on next year and plenty also for the panthers to pick apart before the final.
I reckon panthers win it but hopefully we get a good game at least.