Reasons You Country Can Win the W.C.

[Teh Mite]

And the time before that.

And the time before that.

We don't talk about the time before that.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

If any of the NH teams played Australia now they'd get absolutely mashed up

Thanks to the Reds they know how to play very well with a poor scrum, which was their main problem before

 

[Peat]

If any of the NH teams played Australia now they'd get absolutely mashed up

Thanks to the Reds they know how to play very well with a poor scrum, which was their main problem before

We'll just have to quickly poach some Samoans then, that'll f**k 'em up.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Yes, because Australia did so well against England last time...

Not*relevant*at all for the world cup and I was just trying to point out that 'stus768' hadn't made it clear that England had beaten Australia in his comment.

 

[Peat]

Not*relevant*at all for the world cup and I was just trying to point out that 'stus768' hadn't made it clear that England had beaten Australia in his comment.

Please explain how form going into the World Cup, plus a comparision of the strengths and weaknesses of possible opposing teams which shows that one team can definitley exploit the others' weaknesses very well, isn't relevant.

 

[JW.]

Don't agree with that. I think England and Ireland are cabaple of beating Australia. England have already showed this twice last year, and Ireland have the pack and the backline to outplay Australia. Deny them quickball and put pressure on Genia and Cooper and the breakdown, expose Coopers defence while he's at fullback and ofcourse penalty's through the scrum and don't kick the ball away stupidly allowing them to counterattack. I hope the AB's test them and expose them.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Please explain how form going into the World Cup, plus a comparision of the strengths and weaknesses of possible opposing teams which shows that one team can definitley exploit the others' weaknesses very well, isn't relevant.

Both Australia and England are in the same form as they were in November? England's last three games of the 6N an Australia's match against S.A prove that wrong. And how in anyway is saying ''Well we beat Australia last time so that means we're better and will beat them again'' in any way a comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of possible opposing teams?

 

[JW.]

Australia played a weak SA side that let Australia play and didn't pressure there weaknesses. It looked good and they did put alot of points on them tho. But that is no means of saying they are in better form as they were last June(before the Tri-nations when they beat NZ) and November. But I agree come WC that won't say much at all. What I do think is that England are capable of beating Australia. If they are in form and put pressure on them and attack there weaknesses.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Christ, people really underestimating Australia

The form off the Australia side England beat <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Current Wallaby players

A year is a long time in Rugby as well

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I agree Australia and New Zealand are by far the best sides. Followed by France, Ireland, England and S.A who are all capable of beating Aus without them messing up majorlybut would need alot of luck to beat N.Z

 

[big ginger 8]

Aus play Italy first Ireland play U.S.A.. Who's more likely to come off the worse? Not saying Italy will win but will kick lumps out of Aus. This isn't a slag on their pack this is a fact. Italy go out to beat up teams.

Also it's in N.Z. where rain is likely. Conditions we're used to. Australia are brilliant but on our day so are we.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Aus play Italy first Ireland play U.S.A.. Who's more likely to come off the worse? Not saying Italy will win but will kick lumps out of Aus. This isn't a slag on their pack this is a fact. Italy go out to beat up teams.

Also it's in N.Z. where rain is likely. Conditions we're used to. Australia are brilliant but on our day so are we.

That's stereotypical and disrespectful to BOTH Leinste... I mean Ireland have lots of class out wide and The Re.. I mean Australia have a dogged pack.

 

[big ginger 8]

I know you're being sarcastic but for people who don't not saying a pack is better or anything but it is a fact that Ireland experiences more rain than Aus so ergo we're more used to it.

 

[Peat]

Ok, I slightly misread your initial post cmac but still - England beat Australia last time. They've done so recently in Australia. England have the tools to really get at Australia and unsettle them. Those victories are still relevant, as they're proof that Australia would be wise to fear England.

And yes, England would be wise to respect Australia. But Australia lack the big ball carriers and grizzled defenders of, say, Ireland and South Africa, which are things that will really get to England. Those are the teams I fear (other than NZ, who are in a category by themselves in world rugby right now). Australia's backs can kill anyone on their day but England have the pack to really choke off Australia at base. It's not just about the scrum, its about the ruck and the speed at which Moody/Croft/Haskell will get in Cooper's face. It has been proven repeatedly that England can do that and beat Australia. I haven't seen what's changed since then, except for apparently Australia's form. Because getting beat by Samoa is great. Not fully representive I know, but then neither's beating South Africa B at home. Tigers' academy have done that for ****'s sake! While the fact England couldn't complete a grand slam is reason to write them off.

It's not a guranteed win. But until someone tells me how and why Australia are suddenly able to protect themselves from that sort of pressure, preferably with examples at international level (the form of a domestic club side is far from a gurantee, look at Leinster and Ireland ffs), I'm going to put England as favourites to beat Australia.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Ok, I slightly misread your initial post cmac but still - England beat Australia last time. They've done so recently in Australia. England have the tools to really get at Australia and unsettle them. Those victories are still relevant, as they're proof that Australia would be wise to fear England.

And yes, England would be wise to respect Australia. But Australia lack the big ball carriers and grizzled defenders of, say, Ireland and South Africa, which are things that will really get to England. Those are the teams I fear (other than NZ, who are in a category by themselves in world rugby right now). Australia's backs can kill anyone on their day but England have the pack to really choke off Australia at base. It's not just about the scrum, its about the ruck and the speed at which Moody/Croft/Haskell will get in Cooper's face. It has been proven repeatedly that England can do that and beat Australia. I haven't seen what's changed since then, except for apparently Australia's form. Because getting beat by Samoa is great. Not fully representive I know, but then neither's beating South Africa B at home. Tigers' academy have done that for ****'s sake! While the fact England couldn't complete a grand slam is reason to write them off.

It's not a guranteed win. But until someone tells me how and why Australia are suddenly able to protect themselves from that sort of pressure, preferably with examples at international level (the form of a domestic club side is far from a gurantee, look at Leinster and Ireland ffs), I'm going to put England as favourites to beat Australia.

Yeah it's fine there's no reason a joke should have turned into that. I was just pointing out that Australia would still have to be favorites for the match if it happens but it could still easily go either way.

 

[Peat]

Yeah it's fine there's no reason a joke should have turned into that. I was just pointing out that Australia would still have to be favorites for the match if it happens but it could still easily go either way.

Why? Why would they be favourites when the last two results, including one in Sydney, reads W - England? Why would they be favourites when they have not had substantial changes in the pack that has come under severe pressure in the last three tests?

I think Australia are a better team than England. I think they have more of a chance of winning the World Cup. But I think head to head, England's pack is the perfect instrument for beating Australia around the head with due to a very dynamic tight five (please gods don't let Lawes get injured), and Youngs and Flood are the sort of pairing that really likes to attack disrupted fringes. And recent results bears this out.

 

[big ginger 8]

When I posted my original resons I forgot the biggest one.

We're amazing.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Okay my peacemaking seems to have failed. You said it yourself that Australia are a better team than England and even though England may be the perfect instrument to beat Australia, the better team still has to be the favorites.*

 

[Peat]

Okay my peacemaking seems to have failed. You said it yourself that Australia are a better team than England and even though England may be the perfect instrument to beat Australia, the better team still has to be the favorites.*

Better team in general =/= better team head to head.

I am genuinely curious as to what people think has changed about Australia if anything

 

[j-dawg]

It seems Australia will always be the favourites vs England and so will make many bold remarks to the journalists...which makes it all the more sweeter when we beat them. Time to dust off wilko, Sheridan and co I think, the perfect tools for dismantling the Aussies.