HaydnH Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 While Im here, can anyone explain how it the groups ended up with 3 potential winners in Group A, 2 potential winners in Group D and only one each in B and C? Wales/England/Australia not making the second round while Scotland win a group and Argentina potentially go through after 2 losses isnt really fair ........... The pools are decided 3 years ahead of the RWC, December 2012 for the 2015 world cup, and are based on the IRB world rankings. The top 4 will be spread out across the pools and be joined by a random team ranked 5-8 and another random team ranked 9-12 with the remaining 2 spots in each pool being the winners of regional play off type tournaments. Wales had a bad run of games up to that cut off point and had dropped out of the top 8, hence they were drawn in the 3rd tier joining a pool with a top 4 team and 5-8 ranked team. For reference, Wales won the 6 Nations grand slam in 2012... and then had this run of 7 losses before the pools were drawn: - 09/06/12: AUS 27 - WAL 19 - 16/06/12: AUS 25 - WAL 23 - 23/06/12: AUS 20 - WAL 19 - 10/11/12: WAL 12 - ARG 26 - 16/11/12: WAL 19 - SAM 26 - 24/11/12: WAL 10 - NZL 33 - 01/12/12: WAL 12 - AUS 14 Before that last Oz game on December 1st Wales were in the top 8. The game was played outside the "international window" so not all the international players were available to play and by losing that game they were knocked down to 9th right before the December draw. If the Welsh management had gone for 3 games in the Autumn internationals rather than the extra one the pool of death would have been avoided, likewise if they'd managed to win any of those 7 games they probably would have been in the top 8. *Personally I think that the 3 years should be shortened and be closer to the RWC... but hey. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Legend. Im sticking that straight on my facebook, youre the only person who has been able to explain it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glrnet Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Posted elsewhere but thought I should probably stick it in here too: Loving all the Welsh telling us they "smashed" us .......... it was 3 points guys, and even the bookies were backing England until the death. Fair play to Wales but I thought we lost it more than you won it TBH. As for not taking the kick, I can see his thinking - it would have been a difficult kick, our maul was stronger every time other than the one we needed it to be, and the Japanese got unconstrained praise for doing the same thing, albeit from a much easier kicking position. What I will say is I dontt hink either team would get close to the big three ......... I guess we will find out later this week though Best game Ive seen so far was SA vs Japan, but I reckon Ive probably watched 85% and I havent seen a bad game yet. The gap between the second and first tier is closing, but I havent seen any ball handling to touch the Kiwis/Aussies/SA yet, and I dont think any of the Northern Hemisphere teams are gong to win on the forwards alone. While Im here, can anyone explain how it the groups ended up with 3 potential winners in Group A, 2 potential winners in Group D and only one each in B and C? Wales/England/Australia not making the second round while Scotland win a group and Argentina potentially go through after 2 losses isnt really fair ........... I have to disagree, not with going for the lineout (although a successful kick would have kept us one point ahead of Wales in the table becuase of our bonus point against Fiji) but throwing to the front of the lineout, it's so easy to defend and the at that stage we didn't need the touchline to be a 16th Welshman but that's what we made it. It was a brave decision but very poorly executed. I aslo disagree that we lost it, Wales came out in the 2nd half and decided to attack the 13 channel (Brad Barritt outside centre) as they had had little joy runnig at Burgess, 12 channel, inside centre. Barritt missed 4 tackles I think, at least 2 of those AFTER Burgess was subsitiuted for Ford. Ford still made the tackles but they were 5 to 10m further back than where they were when Burgess was on the field, this resulted in the Wales backs having far more momentum and pace by the time they arrived at Barritt who we all know has no pace, they ran at his inside shoulder, turned him and the rest is history. Lancaster must accept the responsisbility for lots of reasons, firstly imo he omitted the wrong centre from the squad in Luther Burrell, Barritt should've gone. To make things worse he then put Ford on the bench and replaces the man he originally selected because of his physical presence (Burgess) The very reason he dropped Ford for Farrell was to counter the Welsh physicality. Bizarre. Fair play to Wales though, they wanted it more and they got their just reward. Well played. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 (edited) Posted elsewhere but thought I should probably stick it in here too: Loving all the Welsh telling us they "smashed" us .......... it was 3 points guys, and even the bookies were backing England until the death. Fair play to Wales but I thought we lost it more than you won it TBH. As for not taking the kick, I can see his thinking - it would have been a difficult kick, our maul was stronger every time other than the one we needed it to be, and the Japanese got unconstrained praise for doing the same thing, albeit from a much easier kicking position. What I will say is I dontt hink either team would get close to the big three ......... I guess we will find out later this week though Best game Ive seen so far was SA vs Japan, but I reckon Ive probably watched 85% and I havent seen a bad game yet. The gap between the second and first tier is closing, but I havent seen any ball handling to touch the Kiwis/Aussies/SA yet, and I dont think any of the Northern Hemisphere teams are gong to win on the forwards alone. While Im here, can anyone explain how it the groups ended up with 3 potential winners in Group A, 2 potential winners in Group D and only one each in B and C? Wales/England/Australia not making the second round while Scotland win a group and Argentina potentially go through after 2 losses isnt really fair ........... Not a sport i follow but any pundits i heard all said England played the better rugby and were the better team. I just dont get why so many penalties are given within kicking distance though, if i were a coach, that would annoy me beyond belief, although one penalty were the english dude was trapped between two Wales players and was done for not rolling away is ridiculous, sorry but if you are interfering with play and can move fine, but if you physical cannot get out the way, it shouldnt be a penalty, perhaps a scrum at best. Posted elsewhere but thought I should probably stick it in here too: Loving all the Welsh telling us they "smashed" us .......... it was 3 points guys, and even the bookies were backing England until the death. Fair play to Wales but I thought we lost it more than you won it TBH. As for not taking the kick, I can see his thinking - it would have been a difficult kick, our maul was stronger every time other than the one we needed it to be, and the Japanese got unconstrained praise for doing the same thing, albeit from a much easier kicking position. What I will say is I dontt hink either team would get close to the big three ......... I guess we will find out later this week though Best game Ive seen so far was SA vs Japan, but I reckon Ive probably watched 85% and I havent seen a bad game yet. The gap between the second and first tier is closing, but I havent seen any ball handling to touch the Kiwis/Aussies/SA yet, and I dont think any of the Northern Hemisphere teams are gong to win on the forwards alone. While Im here, can anyone explain how it the groups ended up with 3 potential winners in Group A, 2 potential winners in Group D and only one each in B and C? Wales/England/Australia not making the second round while Scotland win a group and Argentina potentially go through after 2 losses isnt really fair ........... I have to disagree, not with going for the lineout (although a successful kick would have kept us one point ahead of Wales in the table becuase of our bonus point against Fiji) but throwing to the front of the lineout, it's so easy to defend and the at that stage we didn't need the touchline to be a 16th Welshman but that's what we made it. It was a brave decision but very poorly executed. I aslo disagree that we lost it, Wales came out in the 2nd half and decided to attack the 13 channel (Brad Barritt outside centre) as they had had little joy runnig at Burgess, 12 channel, inside centre. Barritt missed 4 tackles I think, at least 2 of those AFTER Burgess was subsitiuted for Ford. Ford still made the tackles but they were 5 to 10m further back than where they were when Burgess was on the field, this resulted in the Wales backs having far more momentum and pace by the time they arrived at Barritt who we all know has no pace, they ran at his inside shoulder, turned him and the rest is history. Lancaster must accept the responsisbility for lots of reasons, firstly imo he omitted the wrong centre from the squad in Luther Burrell, Barritt should've gone. To make things worse he then put Ford on the bench and replaces the man he originally selected because of his physical presence (Burgess) The very reason he dropped Ford for Farrell was to counter the Welsh physicality. Bizarre. Fair play to Wales though, they wanted it more and they got their just reward. Well played. Some interesting points being discussed.... I think England made the right call on kicking for the line, Wales had been weakened (especially in the back line) by all the injuries and subs in the game, people out of position, which meant that the English backs would have stood a good chance even 1 on 1. It was also the right decision from a points perspective as they would not want to leave it all to chance (IE. points difference between Eng V Aus and Wales V Aus\0 and I dont blame them for wanting the win! At some point the captain also has to think positive and back the team he has on the field!! However, as said, throwing to the front, schoolboy error and that gave Wales the chance to defend well. In that game I thought England played well in the 1st half and were the better team, but Wales came back for the 2nd half and played better and IMO were the better team in the 2nd half. I think England dropped off a little when Lawes and Youngs went off injured, Lawes was doing a fantastic job of disrupting the lineouts, rucks, mauls and quick ball for Wales. Youngs was also getting the backs going and onto the front foot with his running. As Wales started to come back in the 2nd half, England started making more and more mistakes, its what pressure does, especially to young new players. Too many easy points were given away. As much as I would like to have SA in the top 3, the way they have been playing this year just does not qualify them for that. NZ, Aus and Ireland are the teams to beat. For anyone comparing Rugby V Football - Jean de Villiers SA captain, well now retired since he has been ruled out of the RWC came off the field with a fractured jaw and then went back on (not sure if he had teh fracture at that point). EDIT: this article states he went back onto the field with the fractured jaw for an injured team-mate............ http://www.the42.ie/jean-de-villiers-broken-jaw-samoa-play-on-2354140-Sep2015/ Same guy, Autumn internationals had his knee folded the wrong way, 6 knee ops later he is back! This is the video, but its harsh.... Edited September 28, 2015 by grahamc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnH Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 For anyone wondering what the weekends results mean for the pool of death, here's my speculation on it: Currently the pools is headed by: AUS 9 Pts WAL 9 Pts ENG 6 Pts And there's only 4 games left that will effect those 3 teams: WAL v FIJ ENG v AUS WAL v AUS ENG v URU Even as a Welshman I can safely say England will get a bonus point (4+ tries) win over Uruguay, so that would leave the table as ENG 11, AUS 9, Wales 9 but with England only having one game to improve on that 11 Pts compared to Oz and Wales having 2. Wales should beat Fiji with a bonus point, however it's a short turnaround between the tiring England win and Thursday's Fiji game, Wales have even more injury concerns and Fiji have upset Wales in world cups before, so it's not an easy game to call. I'm going to go for the bonus point win here even though I'm not confident that will happen, I'm not even confident we'll win at this point! I'll repost this after Thursday with a correction. So taking the easy (ish) games in to account, the table will probably be WAL+5, ENG+5: WAL 14 Pts ENG 11 Pts AUS 9 Pts With only these two massive games as a decider, note Oz have two chances to improve compared to ENG & Wales 1: ENG v AUS WAL v AUS Which ignoring draws gives us the options below, excluding bonus points, max BPs in brackets: AUS beat ENG & AUS beat WAL: AUS 17(19), WAL 14(16), ENG 11(13) ENG beat AUS & AUS beat WAL: ENG 15(16), WAL 14(16), AUS 13(16) AUS beat ENG & WAL beat AUS: WAL 18(19), AUS 13(14), ENG 11(13) ENG beat AUS & WAL beat AUS: WAL 18(19), ENG 15(16), AUS 9(13) Wales: Assuming Wales actually beat Fiji with the bonus point, if England lose to Oz then Wales are through. If England beat Oz and Wales lose it will likely be down to bonus points between Oz and Wales for runner up. Wales should have 1 already from Fiji with 1-2 possible when losing to Oz, Oz could get 1 for beating Wales and 1-2 losing to Eng... could be close and a possible scenario. England: Unless Wales lose on Thursday, they have to beat Oz to go through. However, beating Oz even without a bonus point would almost guarantee progression - Oz would have to gain all 3 possible bonus points without England getting theirs to beat England's points (i.e: lose to England by less than seven WITHOUT England scoring 4 tries WHILE scoring 4 tries against BOTH England AND Wales). Even if Oz went all out for the tries, England could pick up 4 tries (think England France in the 6N) in retaliation, the BP win against Oz would ensure England are through to the QFs. Australia: They look pretty comfortable, beat England and they're through. Only losing to both teams would definitely see them out. Losing to only England would mean a bonus point contest between them and Wales (see Wales above). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glrnet Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Easter in for the rest of the tournamant http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34381977 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Gareth Edwards was sying that Wales will most definitely not be fielding a weaker team against Fiji and Gatland wants to put more pressure on England by getting a win over Fiji.... interesting few days of rugby Will be in Cardiff for the Wales Fiji game 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glrnet Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Fiji are no mugs, that's the correct decision by Gatland imo. No need for anyone to put pressure on England, Lancaster has managed to do that almost single handedly Sent from my Zed using Nangkang tyres front, RE040's rear 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Fiji are no mugs, that's the correct decision by Gatland imo. No need for anyone to put pressure on England, Lancaster has managed to do that almost single handedly Sent from my Zed using Nangkang tyres front, RE040's rear More pressure on England is better for Wales but they need to worry about beating Fiji first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 On our way to Cardiff to watch Wales play Fiji later today. Then Newcastle tomorrow for the SA game 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Not the best of Welsh games, but they looked tired.... short turn-around from the win over England and most players had not fully recovered, but its a win. Now to go buy my Australia tshirt for Saturday 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glrnet Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Buster Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Disappointing performance England. But ...GO WALES 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioneabee Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 I bet this thread is going to get very quiet now ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humpy Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 No chance with Netti about 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggalo Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Ah @*!#. I'm going to get it in the ear on Monday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garygranite Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 ooh sorry shame but cat see wales going too far !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valy Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Wales going further then England will suffice for some 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 How many turnovers? That looked woefully poor to me, a great pity they couldnt get out the group stages, almost as bad as English football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glrnet Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 How many turnovers? That looked woefully poor to me, a great pity they couldnt get out the group stages, almost as bad as English football.dont be too harsh. Only 9 turnovers this time, we managed 11 against Fiji!!😄 Sent from my Zed using Nangkang tyres front, RE040's rear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Well least their improving then, lol and I guess they at least won that game. So rugby buffs, where is the problem, coaching staff, team selection, players or combo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glrnet Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 80% coaching staff 20% players for me. This is not a bad bunch of players but the bunch could have been better. Lancaster made a decision to play attacking rugby last season when he selected George Ford at Fly Half and it was begining to work, however for me his thinking became confused and unsure at sqaud selection time. To pick an ex Rugby League player to play centre at international level in Union is a naive decison. Burgess plays at flanker at club level and had only ever played 3 ganes at centre in his whole career!!! He's a stopper, not a creator. To put this into perspective Sonny Bill Williams (All Blacks) is also a Rugby League convert to centre, he has far more natural ability than Burgess and was lucky enough to join Toulon in France in 2008 and was coached on a daily basis by one of the greatest centres of all time, Tana Umaga (All Black Captain). He was good any way but it toook him nearly 2 years to reach the standard that enabled him to play All Black rugby, he still isn't a first choice centre!! The pont I'm making is that Lancaster & Farrell were naive beyond belief to imgaine that Burgess wouldn't get found out at international level, and he was. It takes years to become a good centre. Not only that, Lancaster and Farrell compounded the problem against Wales by playing our defensive centre (Brad Barritt) at outside centre to accomodate Burgess at inside centre, Barrit's ideal possition. Barritt missed 4 tackles against Wales which is unusual for him but he was being exposed by Burgess's poor positional play, Against Oz Barritt played at inside centre and when he went off injured had made 13 tackles and missed none. The centre issue is however not the whole problem, the real problem is confused and unclear thinking at coach level but questions have to be asked how much influence coach Farrell had in the Burgess selection. Now for those who don't know, Farrell made his mark at Wigan playing, you guessed it, Rugby League, he converted to Union and was hailed as the future at, guess which position, you guessed again, yup, Centre. It's fair to say he played at a reasonable level at Saracens but never ever became what I would call a real Union centre. Back to the unclear thinking. As I mentioned earlier Lancaster opted for Ford at Fly Half to play expansive rugby a year ago, First big game (Wales) he drops him and brings Owen Farrell (yes he's Coach Farrells' son) back to play defensive rugby, this is the League way of doing things, see above, this will have upset the routine and the feel for the whole the group and we were found lacking, poor decsion making on the pitch didn't help. Against Australia we were out muscled in the front row (that doesn't happen) and on the floor at the ruck by 2 exceptional flankers in Hooper and Pocock but we weren't street wise enough to deal with them, we should have been, we knew what to expect and didn;t deal with it, hence the nunber of turnovers. In summary, poor coaching decisions at too many levels including squad selection, Care, Cipriani and Burrell to name 3 should have been in this squad but they are creative players, god forbid!!! Poor execution on the field by some players and too many unforced mistakes cost us dear ultimately. Well you did ask, I'm sure others have thoughts too but that's my 2 penny worth. **edit** Interestingly Lancaster now says responsibility lies with him and others and their positions shoud be considered!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Its all new to me, so the above seems very informative, thanks. I seem to remember watching a few games not so long ago and thought they looked pretty good, nothing like the last few, but I wouldnt recognise squad changes etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I really do not like rugby, yes I am a footy guy and the two sports are so different to me that I just cannot enjoy rugby for all the stop start one directional play that happens. But hey thats just my view. Anyway I succumbed and went with my mate to watch the game last night, nearly went to the fanzone in Old Deer Park but changed our minds and just went to our local, probably the last time in a long while I watch rugby again - it was really painful viewing not just the score but even from my untrained eye the England team looked all at sea as if they were playing this game for the first time. It was also evident that I didn't actually know any names of any of the players, yet I can recall Jonny Wilkinson, Jeremy Guscott, Rob Andrew, Will Carling, Martin Johnson over the years when I occasionally watched rugby, it was almost as if we used to have standout players who were game changers but the team I saw last night didn't seem to have anyone capable of stepping up to the plate in the way those guys would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glrnet Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Just as well you didn't go to the Fanzone, they closed it at 1400, packed!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.