Irish victory consequences.

[Aout]

So Ireland won against the Aussies.

Ireland should ("should", because we never know what's going to happen) win against Italy and therefore secure its first place, with Australia finishing 2nd.

Pool B : I can't see Scotland causing much trouble to England, so let's say England 1st and Scotland/Argentina 2nd.

Pool D : South Africa 1st, Samoa/Wales 2nd.

Ok, so now let's assume France loses against NZ and finish 2nd of its group (and NZ 1st), the final stage table would be like this (I picked Wales over Samoa and Scotland over Argentina to make things easier) :

1. Ireland v Wales
2. France v England
=> Semi-final : Ireland OR Wales v France OR England

3. South Africa v Australia
4. New Zealand v Scotland.
=> Semi-final : South Africa OR Australia v New Zealand OR Scotland

Considering these tables, is there any reason France shouldn't play with a 2nd string squad against NZ ?
Because if France wins against New Zealand, and finish 1st of its group, 1/4 and 1/2 finals will be a nightmare.

 

[nickdnz]

So Ireland won against the Aussies.

Ireland should ("should", because we never know what's going to happen) win against Italy and therefore secure its first place, with Australia finishing 2nd.

Pool B : I can't see Scotland causing much trouble to England, so let's say England 1st and Scotland/Argentina 2nd.

Pool D : South Africa 1st, Samoa/Wales 2nd.

Ok, so now let's assume France loses against NZ and finish 2nd of its group (and NZ 1st), the final stage table would be like this (I picked Wales over Samoa and Scotland over Argentina to make things easier) :

1. Ireland v Wales
2. France v England
=> Semi-final : Ireland OR Wales v France OR England

3. South Africa v Australia
4. New Zealand v Scotland.
=> Semi-final : South Africa OR Australia v New Zealand OR Scotland

Considering these tables, is there any reason France shouldn't play with a 2nd string squad against NZ ?
Because if France wins against New Zealand, and finish 1st of its group, 1/4 and 1/2 finals will be a nightmare.

No, as I mentioned yesturday, the best thing for either France/NZ is to lose the game.

 

[Sneaki]

I don't get this mentality of saying certain results make it easier or harder to get to the final. If a team is the best in the world they should be able to beat whoever they play in the knockout matches, simple as that. So whether they AB's play England, Argentina or Scotland in the quarter is irrelevant to me, if we don't back ourselves to be able to beat any of those three we don't deserve to be world champions. The same goes for a potential semi against Aus/Sa.

 

[Sam Owen]

I don't get this mentality of saying certain results make it easier or harder to get to the final. If a team is the best in the world they should be able to beat whoever they play in the knockout matches, simple as that.

Agree hardout, whoever is in the way of the championship and the champion, is just in the way.

 

[shtove]

Don't agree with this at all.

Scotland can take England.

If France want to win the RWC they must take the ABs in the pool game.

Everyone's dreaming about avoiding the SH teams, but Ireland just spanked the 3N champions. Wake up - they're not that good!

The RWC champions of 2011 should come from the NH because set piece and defence are more advanced. Someone just has to figure out how to beat the ABs at home. Difficult, but possible. So who wants it? Please not SA!

 

[tomred]

Only one disagreement with what you've said. I watched both Argentina and Scotland play Romania in Invercargill and cant see Scotland getting anywhere near Argentina.

 

[Seaton]

Only one disagreement with what you've said. I watched both Argentina and Scotland play Romania in Invercargill and cant see Scotland getting anywhere near Argentina.

We'll be better than those two games.

It is not in our nature to play comfortably, the Scottish Rugby Union has a secret pack with hospitals that specialize in heart surgery, and thus the players ensure that as much damage is done to our hearts as possible in 80 minutes.

Nah, in all seriousness we will, not should, be better, not only because it is very hard to replicate such shoddy performances, but because we have some decent players and a good coach, as well as 10 days after our two games to sort out our problems.

Robinson will be looking at this.

Our backline against Romania was creative and had the gas and hands to exploit gaps, looking mainly at Ansbro here. However our forward pack was munched and defence generally poor.
Our forwards were in control against Georgia, defence was very good and closed down all attacks effectively. Horrible goal kicking by Parks meant we never built up a sizable lead with which we could move on and go for tries until late in the game. Rory Lamont was excellent in his fielding and counter-attacking of kicks, however in the games against the Argies and England we might need Paterson's boot not only for goal kicking, but for touch finders. Otherwise our backs weren't inventive and struggled to either find the existing gaps, or to take them.


Take the attack from the first, which would be done by adding Ansbro in for de Luca, possibly putting Sean Lamont at 12 and bringing brother Rory to the left wing with Paterson at fullback, and use the forward pack (bar Murray) from the Georgia game, and it will be game on again.

 

[shtove]

Only one disagreement with what you've said. I watched both Argentina and Scotland play Romania in Invercargill and cant see Scotland getting anywhere near Argentina.

Haven't seen those matches, but I reckon Arg and Scotland will be very intense and close.

 

[BladeMode]

Please not SA!

Huh! Why not?

 

[Isurus]

If France want to win the RWC they must take the ABs in the pool game.

Everyone's dreaming about avoiding the SH teams, but Ireland just spanked the 3N champions. Wake up - they're not that good!

Why must France win the pool game? That means having to put together 3 massive performances - first to beat NZ in the pool, then in the semi against SA/Oz, then the final. If they go the other route then they can get to the final without ever hitting top form. Just a decent performance is usually good enough against any of the home nations.

Look, I don't think for a second that France will throw their pool game or pick a weakened team. What I am saying is that with no real prize on offer v the All Blacks I just don't think they will come up with that huge performance that has done us over in the past. Mark my words (and I am fully prepared to wear it if I am wrong), the All Blacks will beat France easily next weekend.

As for your "they're not that good" comment. Here's what I think - a poor Australian performance is much much worse than a poor New Zealand performance. When Australia plays badly then they are anybody's *****. When New Zealand plays badly we still win, except against the very best. Do you really think for a second that New Zealand, even playing poorly, wouldn't have gotten up over that Ireland side yesterday? Ireland have been trying for a long long time and they have never once beaten us.

New Zealand and Australia are very different. Yes, we both produce backs that know how to score tries (weird huh?) but New Zealand puts a much greater emphasis on setting solid foundations in the tight 5. Here's a challenge for you - when was the last time New Zealanad was dominated up front by a northern hemisphere team? Can you name even one time in the last ten years?

 

[Mr.cyclopede]

Already said why not:
We're not in a position to make 2 accomplishments in a row
We won't perform if we become a favorite

 

[Black Heart]

No, as I mentioned yesturday, the best thing for either France/NZ is to lose the game.

I agree. Although we'd be then throwing away the Eden Park mentality.

 

[no-1-rugby-fan]

Ireland were really up for that game yesterday and raised their game but for all their good rugby Australia lack the phsyicality to threaten at this world cup.

 

[Black Heart]

Ireland were really up for that game yesterday and raised their game but for all their good rugby Australia lack the phsyicality to threaten at this world cup.

Wrong. The Wallabies completely demolished the All Black fowards only three weeks ago. When they get up for a game they are the toughest team in the world to beat.

I'm not taking anything away from Ireland because they played superbly well. But Australia played like crap last night.

 

[austingtir]

^They only really beat the AB forwards for the first half and it was a really understrength ab's back row with thompson and reads injury early on and kaino at home and the ab's general disintrest in the game by the time henry gave them the wake up call the game was won.
Kaino would be a huge loss for us if he went down him and kahui are our form players atm.

I honestly think and hope that the AB tight five has been holding back this year in the scrums so as not to give the game away if they were to face Aussie. I think they've known for some time they could destroy the aussie pack up front like the irish did. I dont know if will be proven right about that now that ireland have pretty much proven to everyone else that australia arent that great if you put the forwards under real pressure.

Remember the first test ab's vs ireland last year in NZ the irish were well up for that game against us and we still beat them with room to spare.

 

[austingtir]

I also think argentina is a shoe in for second in their pool i dont even think scotland will be within 7 of them... more likely 9 though. They deserved that win over england just bad luck with injuries and the usual cheating from england stoped it.

How anybody can say that losing the france game is going to help us makes my mind boggle. It would be a total disaster if we lost AGAIN to them even if it is only a pool match.
I think at home its only fair we have to go though SA/Aus to make the final if we cant we werent good enough.

SA is going to be an enormous game for us.

 

[McTallshort]

Wrong. The Wallabies completely demolished the All Black fowards only three weeks ago. When they get up for a game they are the toughest team in the world to beat.

I'm not taking anything away from Ireland because they played superbly well. But Australia played like crap last night.

Thats right if a SH team wins its because they are good if a NH team win or get close (Wales) its because the SH were crap/forward pass/ poor reffing/it rained/ NH team played negitive rugby/poor selection

 

[nix0000]

Don't understand this crap about throwing games. Look at what India had to go through to win the cricket world cup. If the ABs can't beat S.A or Australia in NZ-especially given our track record at Eden Park- and then finish off a Northern hemisphere team in the final well then, they simply don't deserve to win the world cup...it's that simple.

In saying that though, i doubt the French will be up for saturday's game. The french rugby team reminds me of the Kiwi league team in their ability to top what look to be unbeatable teams, but unable to put in the effort on a consistant basis. Also, from what i've seen, when the French lose, they LOSE big time. Look at the margin of their defeats over recent years, even to teams like Argentina. They're a team that thrives on targeting one-off games, so much so that by the week after they look like utter trash, a la 87 French, 99 French, 07 French.

 

[Black Heart]

Thats right if a SH team wins its because they are good if a NH team win or get close (Wales) its because the SH were crap/forward pass/ poor reffing/it rained/ NH team played negitive rugby/poor selection

Really? That's what you took out of that?

You made the comment that the Wallabies "lack the physicality to threaten at this world cup." That is ******. Your basing your opinion on one game where "the Wallabies played like crap." If you want to deny that fact then that's fine and I've already acknowledged that Ireland played exceptionally well so don't drag the whole NH vs SH debate into it.

 

[Black Heart]

Don't understand this crap about throwing games. Look at what India had to go through to win the cricket world cup. If the ABs can't beat S.A or Australia in NZ-especially given our track record at Eden Park- and then finish off a Northern hemisphere team in the final well then, they simply don't deserve to win the world cup...it's that simple.
In saying that though, i doubt the French will be up for saturday's game. The french rugby team reminds me of the Kiwi league team in their ability to top what look to be unbeatable teams, but unable to put in the effort on a consistant basis. Also, from what i've seen, when the French lose, they LOSE big time. Look at the margin of their defeats over recent years, even to teams like Argentina. They're a team that thrives on targeting one-off games, so much so that by the week after they look like utter trash, a la 87 French, 99 French, 07 French.

Um, if the All Blacks can't beat Australia or South Africa in a semi final then obviously they don't deserve to win the world cup because they would not be in the final would they? Make sense?

Losing against France would presumably allow for an easier run to the final and I think if you ask, most New Zealanders would be perfectly happy for the All Blacks to throw a pool match if it meant winning the world cup. Winning the tounament is, after all, the goal.