Do the northern hemisphere teams have any advantages?

[markshaw]

We'll see!

 

[calculon]

We'll see!

I hope you don't choke btw. Ireland have this world cup in the bag ^_^

 

[donmcdazzle]

I'll give a SH perspective on the discussions a few pages back. Robinson is better than Williams, and BoD is better than Greenwood. Greenwood was a classy player no doubt, but BoD was better in most facets (both were very good don't get me wrong).

I've never understood the Welsh fascination with Williams. He has great acceleration but that's about it. Even though Robinson was similarly small he had more power in his play. You rarely saw Robinson get ragdolled like Williams does. Neither were that hot on defence either way.

Had to laugh at Olyy mentioning Cohen before, rubbish player. Why not bring Luger into the conversation?

 

[Seaton]

Not hating on the NH teams but I'm predicting some big scores against them (Ireland and Scotland in perticulair)

By whom exactly?

 

[LittleGuy]

Not hating on the NH teams but I'm predicting some big scores against them (Ireland and Scotland in perticulair)

I'm not sure how far Ireland and Scotland will go, in fact I think both of them might not make it past the pool stages but I'm not expecting huge scores against them, barring Australia exploding for tries against Ireland.

 

[Larksea]

IMO they all have the advantage of being underdogs, a situation the all blacks almost never get to enjoy. Much easier to go into a game knowing all you have to do is do your best and winning is a massive bonus than going into every game with the expectation that you not only have to win but win well.

One of the main reasons the All Blacks haven't won as many World Cups as they should have. Because any team that goes up against the all blacks has nothing to lose.

 

[Saint]

We won our World Cup in the Southern Hemisphere, a fine day it was.

When we played Australia down under recently we were fine, so it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[markshaw]

By whom exactly?

Aussie and Argentina mate. If they prove me wrong I'll eat my words

 

[calculon]

Aussie and Argentina mate. If they prove me wrong I'll eat my words

Nah we're gonna thump the Wobs.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I have to say I'd be surprised if Argentina beat Scotland. I don't think they are close to the team they were in 2007.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Had to laugh at Olyy mentioning Cohen before, rubbish player. Why not bring Luger into the conversation?

I admit that Cohen didn't have the constant class of Robinson (or even Williams) but in that era (01-03ish) he was superb

Who held the Worldcup

Me! When it did the tour of England after the WC

 

[Seaton]

Aussie and Argentina mate. If they prove me wrong I'll eat my words

Fairs doo, but you do know what the results have looked like between Scotland and Argentina since the last world cup, right?

Actually, I'm quite interested to see what the scores/ results have been between us, the Argies and the English in the last four years. However, not enough that I would be bothered looking them up, just wrack my brain a bit...

Scotland beaten Argentina 3 times, all in Argentina. Lost twice, one at home 2009, the other first match of the 2008 tour. All results have been less than 10 points difference IIRC.

England have played the Pumas a couple of times, only one away though, I think 3 at home? I am correct in saying England won them all? Mind that one one try at Old Trafford, where the England winger volleyed the ball perfectly, which set up his try, Armitage? Think England won most of these fairly comfortably.

Scotland have played England 4 times, with Scotland winning once at home, and a 15 all draw, both at Murrayfield I think. All bar one tight games.

Exciting group

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Actually, I'm quite interested to see what the scores/ results have been between us, the Argies and the English in the last four years. However, not enough that I would be bothered looking them up, just wrack my brain a bit...

In the last four years (including the 2007 world cup) against Argentina:

[TABLE="class: grid"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Games Won[/TD]
[TD]Games Lost[/TD]
[TD]Points Scored (average)[/TD]
[TD]Points Conceded (average)[/TD]
[TD]Points Difference (average)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]England[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]75 (25)[/TD]
[TD]48 (16)[/TD]
[TD]27 (9)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Scotland[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]97 (16.2)[/TD]
[TD]88 (14.7)[/TD]
[TD]9 (1.5)[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]




In the last four years, England vs Scotland:
[TABLE="class: grid"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Games Won[/TD]
[TD]Games Lost[/TD]
[TD]Games Drawn[/TD]
[TD]Pts Scored[/TD]
[TD]Pts Conceded[/TD]
[TD]Pts Differnce[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]England[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]114 (22.8)[/TD]
[TD]78 (15.6)[/TD]
[TD]36 (7.2)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Scotland[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]78 (15.6)[/TD]
[TD]114 (22.8)[/TD]
[TD]-36 (-7.2)[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

 

[HenryChinaski]

Part of the reason that I think New Zealand will take this world cup, is that I don't buy at all the stereotypes levelled at the separate countries. "England know how to win world-cups"... The class of 2003 know how to win world-cups, not the 2011 squad(barring johnson) Maybe there are a few relics left from 2003 - in the case of Shaw, quite literally an old relic - but by and large its a completely different squad and we're as much in the dark about how to win the world cup as anyone else.

Another typical saying is 'Ireland don't perform at worldcups'. I'd make pretty much the same comments about that. Its a new squad, which, shitty recent form notwithstanding, has confidence in itself to perform.

And finally I don't buy the stereotype that NZ are chokers. Only in the sense that there is national-expectation upon them, but otherwise theres many new, baggage-free players here who are hardly going to be suffering from flashbacks to 2007.

Also, nobody has anything to lose playing NZ? ...the game? I see what people mean by this, but I still think teams, especially the top 10 teams, won't just resign themselves to their fate when playing NZ, and will know that the scoreboard won't budge an inch until they let someone score against them.

 

[Mihnea Cristian Ionescu]

well , the NH comes with no major stress. meanwhile , NZ are the host and the crowd pressure is huge , and AUS also prove that might make mistakes . South Africa i think that doesn ' t have more chances than let's say France , eventhough they might reach also in the final. As from Europe , i see with good chances England , France , and call me crazy Wales.

 

[Seaton]

In the last four years (including the 2007 world cup)
</tbody>[/TABLE]

Boo, including 2007 skewers the results.

When did England lose to Argentina? The away game in the two match series?

 

[HenryChinaski]

arguably England come with a huge amount of pressure on them. MJ will probably lose his job if we don't reach the semis at least, and theres pressure on all the players from the 'two world wars and one world cup' brigade who think that its our divinely-ordained duty to suceed

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Boo, including 2007 skewers the results.

When did England lose to Argentina? The away game in the two match series?

Yeah, in Salta during Lions tour in 2009, we lost the game by 2pts

 

[Logorrhea]

Swings and roundabouts, they were both absolutely superb at their prime

Its off topic but you cant compare Shane Williams to Jason Robinson (JPR maybe, Shane no). One was a Welsh legend, the other was a Rugby Legend. Robinson is one of the best players to play the game.

As for the advantages. The WC is consistently won by the team who are mentally the strongest. Rarely do the best team win.

The NH teams always have one up on the SH teams in this area.

Secondly, no one expects us to do anything or get anywhere. The NH team will alwa\ys be an underdog playing the SH team. Could give us an edge.

Even those two are grasping at straws.

 

[The big Kangaroo]

i reckon that Scotland will beat Argentina in a close game