After just over a week, has your mind changed on who you think will win the Worl

[jflintoff]

My mind hasn't changed, I just fancy England even stronger now. I can only see England winning it, they actually played well and were slightly unlucky losers. They will come on bundles for that game and improve.

By process of elimination:

Wales are injury ridden and will struggle
SA currently aren't good enough, e.g Japan result
France just are not good enough
Ireland are overrated and have a dire record in this
AUS are hit and miss and blow hot n cold, don't fancy them
NZ are bottlerrs / chokers and can't win outside of NZ

And you are the reasons wrong with English rugby, and Naive.

 

[Game Face]

Well everyone is entitled to their own opinions buddy.

I'm just saying I still fancy England to win the WC and last nights result could be a blessing in disguise.

If England do fail to win the WC then sure it's going to be either AUS or NZ lifting the trophy. No other team has the quality.

 

[Groundhog]

The fact is that Stuart Lancaster and Andy Farrell much like any great generals have opted to lose the battle and win the war not to mention double team chicks. You're all deluded if you think that much like the Romans at the battle of Cannae you've been suckered into thinking we are falling back beaten and bested only for us to close ranks around you and route you.

 

[jflintoff]

Well everyone is entitled to their own opinions buddy.

I'm just saying I still fancy England to win the WC and last nights result could be a blessing in disguise.

If England do fail to win the WC then sure it's going to be either AUS or NZ lifting the trophy. No other team has the quality.

Certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I agree with the Wales comment however they played their best rugby in the 2nd of the two halves when they had the injuries sustained already. Who knows, they may surprise everyone.

Time will tell huh

 

[Tadginator]

The fact is that Stuart Lancaster and Andy Farrell much like any great generals have opted to lose the battle and win the war not to mention double team chicks. You're all deluded if you think that much like the Romans at the battle of Cannae you've been suckered into thinking we are falling back beaten and bested only for us to close ranks around you and route you.

*rout
God save our queen and her sacred language

 

[Kiwi_]

Is that how NZers remember 1999? Seriously? The odds in 1999 both at the beginning of the tournament and before the game against France were in NZ's favor. Check any non-french and non-nez zealand (to correct a bit for bias) newspaper from the time before that game.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/history/2966114.stm

Yawn, I was talking about odds of winning the tournament, the year before in 1998 we lost 5 games on the trot. It wasn't a good All Black side, it had some amazing players n the outside backs, but our forwards were rubbish. We had Andrew Blowers, Maxwell, Willis playing for Gods sake, we had a strong starting team, but no bench. I really don't care about book makers favourites, anyone with half a brain could see the AB's weren't the best team in the tournament that year. Australia had the best team and it showed with their stint of domination after.

 

[Groundhog]

*rout
God save our queen and her sacred language

Thanks friend. You're quite right. It is our language and I should aim higher. God save England.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Yawn, I was talking about odds of winning the tournament, the year before in 1998 we lost 5 games on the trot. It wasn't a good All Black side, it had some amazing players n the outside backs, but our forwards were rubbish. We had Andrew Blowers playing for Gods sake.
I really don't care about book makers favourites, anyone with half a brain could see the AB's weren't the best team in the tournament that year. Australia had the best team and it showed with their stint of domination after.

"Yawn"? What are you, five?
And i got what you meant. I still disagree and had you read the link i posted you would have noted that.

I really don't care about book makers favourites, anyone with half a brain could see the AB's weren't the best team in the tournament that year. Australia had the best team and it showed with their stint of domination after.

Allow me to translate: i don't care what other people say. We weren't favourites because i say we weren't, period.

It's as if you are completely cluless about what favourite actually means.

 

[Kiwi_]

It's a stale topic, rehashing "remember that time the AB's choked, when they were favourites". So yes. YAWN.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

So you are five.

 

[SomeOke]

My mind hasn't changed, I just fancy England even stronger now. I can only see England winning it, they actually played well and were slightly unlucky losers. They will come on bundles for that game and improve.

By process of elimination:

Wales are injury ridden and will struggle
SA currently aren't good enough, e.g Japan result
France just are not good enough
Ireland are overrated and have a dire record in this
AUS are hit and miss and blow hot n cold, don't fancy them
NZ are bottlerrs / chokers and can't win outside of NZ

Every team has their problems but so does England, I know because I've been watching you guys from my glass house.

 

[jflintoff]

Every team has their problems but so does England, I know because I've been watching you guys from my glass house.

haha

 

[Kiwi_]

"Yawn"? What are you, five?
And i got what you meant. I still disagree and had you read the link i posted you would have noted that.


Allow me to translate: i don't care what other people say. We weren't favourites because i say we weren't, period.

It's as if you are completely cluless about what favourite actually means.

Thinking back to 1999, it was a strange year. I was kinda young at the time, but I remember there being a distrust and almost fake confidence in the team. Support wasn't all there for John Hart, we had lost 5 times in a row in 1998, changing of the guard etc and we really didn't know who our bench/impact players were. There were a lot of hangers on in the squad, our depth wasn't so strong. We had a really strong starting 15, but it got pretty thin after there. I guess we went in as tournament favourites because of our Tri-Nation results, but Australia still held the Bledisloe, but no one here was completely convinced, that's my memory of it, so I never really considered us favourites in 99. Maybe a favourites if you had to pick one, but outright favourites is a bit much.

 

[chikwa chibwe]

Judging from the performances in the rugby championship and the first 2 games for the all blacks . This is not a side that is head and shoulders above the rest. Between Ireland , South Africa , England ,Australia,Wales and THe AB's any side can win this cup.
The weakness in the All Blacks are the same that were prevalent in the rugby championship. Poor first time tackling , inconsistent scrummaging, & being Dominated at the break down. Jerome Kaino needs to do more work at the break down. He also needs to use his natural athletic ability to dominate the collisions when tackling and with ball in hand. I think in a tournament such as this Messam and Vito are better options. Dan Carter really needs to up his game. He keeps drifting with ball in hand. This makes life difficult for the outside backs .Particularly with very focused rush defences mindful of the highly talented all blacks back Line.
The all blacks do not need a mediocre & dependable Dan Carter,they need a Dan Carter who is brimming with confidence and oozing brilliance.

 

[FrenchFan]

I do think the threat of France to the AB's has been hyped out of all sensible proportions!

Agreed. It's completely over hyped. I think the competition by its nature will throw up more great games and more surprises anyway.

2011 the players had strong leaders in Harinorduqouy and Yachvilli who took control of the dressing room away from Lievremont. The latter was then as Lancaster is now in using players out of position by omitting better players!!

The do not have those players who can do that now and with an equally bad coach

In terms of the leaders we had back in 2011 - the basque mafia + Rougerie Servat Bonnaire & Co - the current 'team' is still in the starting blocks. Never seen a WC team so bereft of leadership. No interest either.

 

[Horacito]

Yeah, my mind has changed. Now we don't have 5% of making it to the final: we have 10%.

If we get france after the pool stage, I think we can make it. France is crazy and so are we, their game style favors us, especially now with Cordero/Imhoff/ Amorosino and Hernández to do his thing (not screwing up by kicking everything and doing funny passes) and a good third row to support them.

Ireland on the other hand... they are so serious. They are rigid like germans, I think they would defeat us.

Cheers

 

[Ospreylian]

My mind hasn't changed, I just fancy England even stronger now. I can only see England winning it, they actually played well and were slightly unlucky losers. They will come on bundles for that game and improve.

By process of elimination:

Wales are injury ridden and will struggle
SA currently aren't good enough, e.g Japan result
France just are not good enough
Ireland are overrated and have a dire record in this
AUS are hit and miss and blow hot n cold, don't fancy them
NZ are bottlerrs / chokers and can't win outside of NZ

Although it is unfortunate, I do think the injury situation has been overblown to some degree. Wales's game plan revolves primarily around the forwards at the moment, all of which are fit and available. The forwards is also where Wales have the most strength in depth - there are multiple positions where players are fighting for starting spots i.e. Owens/Baldwin, Lee/Francis, Charteris/Davies, Lydiate/Tipuric. I think this healthy competition between players is one of the reasons this group of forwards has been putting in such gutsy performances. For the Fiji clash, Wales have multiple possible options with the forwards, perhaps bringing Jake Ball into the mix for some attritional play, or Moriarty for the same purpose. So even the forwards who will definitely not get a starting place against Australia still have a purpose to play and the strength in depth is there.

With the backs, Davies has been great so far and Lloyd Williams is on form too. Biggar is Biggar, but Priestland hasn't been great. Roberts is crucial to our game plan and an injury to him would be very costly. Outside centre is now Wales' biggest concern, but if North does slot in it's good to know he has played there a bit now. The back 3 is the biggest concern, but there are still plenty of options in my eyes. Morgan is an attacking threat at wing or fullback, Priestland could play fullback (though I wouldn't want this), Eli Walker could potentially come back in, North may well stay on the wing if Tyler Morgan gets brought back in, not to mention the likes of Jordan Williams, Kristian Phillips, Harry Robinson, Rhys Patchell, James Hook, Tom James, Dan Evans, Hanno Dirksen, Richard Fussell and Dan Fish who could be called upon. So personally, I don't think Wales' strength in depth is too bad. I mean, if worse comes to worst they should just stick Lloyd on the wing again, seems to know what he's doing

 

[McTallshort]

I said not England and that's looking more likely now

 

[Dirty Ape]

I think NZ are favourites but all teams are long shots. I would put the odds something like the following:
NZ 28%
Aus 20%
SA 12%
Ire 12%
Eng 10%
Fra 7%
Wal 6%
Arg 2%
Sco 1%
Other 1%

Wales probably deserve better but their squad has been decimated with most of the mountain still to climb. I think NZ will be favourites to win any match we play but it's going to be 3 matches with odds like 75%, 65%, 55%, and putting all those together gives odds around 27%. We are long shots.

- - - Updated - - -

And like all those other tournaments, if we fail to turn that 28% into 100% then we will be called chokers forever. Sigh.

 

[TommiG88]

I still think South Africa will win.