Rugby World Cup 2019 predictions

[ncurd]

I also think an England hitting their straps like they did in the opening two matches of the six nations beats anyone but as noted the next three games shows they prone to not doing that well in a short space of time.

 

[Scotty]

England have proved they are not lacking in attack even without JJ watson and big joe. But also have shown they are prone to letting off the gas and losing their heads.

We have proved against Ireland that our brutal physical defence putting in multiple dominant tackles can stop a team dead but can also be used against us as wales proved. They kept coming and getting knocked back and coming again sapping alot of energy out of the english defence.

So my prediction is that England can win the world cup, we can beat the best of them and we have the talent and coaches to take it all the way...IF WE LEARN TO ADAPT....

2019 6N
Ireland we took the game ealry and defended at the end and won.

France we dominated but then let off and the scorline could have been much higher.

Wales won the first half and didnt adapt in the second and go beaten fair and square.

Italy i honestly cant remember.

Scotland dominated and won by half time...scotland came back and got a couple of tries. At this point we need to adapt tighten the defence but we kept kicking it back to them and got a hard faught draw.


2 bad halfs v wales and scotland cost us. But 5 dominant first halfs followed by a slower second half. Do this in the wold cup against NZ and they will not end the game on a draw!

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I think it's NZ's to lose and by more than we'd like to admit. (Although Mr. Super Computer is still a plinker) Only two teams in the competition know they can beat them, one of those is SA who won 1 game who have been utterly dominated by NZ for the last 10 years, the other is Ireland who have gone seriously off the boil, challenge is on for those two. You could maybe add Australia but God knows what's going on there.

England got close recently, Wales haven't in yonks, it could happen but it's rare enough to go to a World Cup and beat a team you haven't beaten for 7 years. France v NZ in 2007 comes to mind but even then they had literally everything going for them. No one else is good enough.

I'd back NZ's chances v the other 4 contenders with a hell of a lot of change. Shite enough craic.

 

[Leinster Fan]

NZ are the best team but the difference is they're actually a genuine team with strengths and weaknesses like everyone else, as opposed to 2015 when most of that team could have had an argument to be one of the best players of all time in their respective positions.

They're beatable but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they won.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I've always thought looking at the draw that this RWC will be determined by the NZ v SA game and how that turns out.

For England I agree with above the word adapt is the big thing. They just don't adapt as the game unfolds for me. I just don't think this team has enough time between now and the RWC to learn this as a team. They will come unstuck at some point for this reason.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

For England I agree with above the word adapt is the big thing. They just don't adapt as the game unfolds for me. I just don't think this team has enough time between now and the RWC to learn this as a team.

Agreed that they can't fix that. What they can fix is forgetting the fast starts that we just can't hold on to and remember that games are decided in the last 20 not the first 20. Back to the finishers - structure the 23 so that we have a bench who can ramp it up when the game is in the balance. If that means some of Binny, Mako, George, Itoje and Tuilagi get splinters for the first half I can live with that. Moon replacing Mako is a chink of light for opponents, vice versa is a sinking feeling.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

games are decided in the last 20 not the first 20.

Not really, I reckon the only six nations games that were decided in the last 20 were the two England didn't win and even then the 3rd quarter was more influential, a bunch were won in the first 20. Different teams win in different ways but from personal experience I reckon most tight games are won by the side who are in the ascendency for the majority of the 30-60 minute period.

I'd much prefer a fast start every time to a strong finish.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Knock out rugby I think they are largely decided in the last 20. I am sure someone can post stats up to show it. Certainly in the last RWC I can think of Wales v SA, Scotland v Australia, NZ v SA and NZ v Aus were decided in the last 20z

Not Ireland v Argentina. Ireland had shot their load by the time the final 20. Maybe that's where they went wrong. (Yes the irony of England not even reaching the knockout stages hasn't been lost on me).

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Knock out rugby I think they are largely decided in the last 20. I am sure someone can post stats up to show it. Certainly in the last RWC I can think of Wales v SA, Scotland v Australia, NZ v SA and NZ v Aus were decided in the last 20z

Not Ireland v Argentina. Ireland had shot their load by the time the final 20. Maybe that's where they went wrong. (Yes the irony of England not even reaching the knockout stages hasn't been lost on me).

Where Ireland had a peno to level it on 60 minutes? I swear that must be the most misremembered game of all time just because of the Ireland RWC QF meme!

I'd rebut the world cup knockouts you mentioned with this year's Heino semi finals and finals where the winners left everything in their control in the last 20 by dominating large parts of the 30-60 minute period. The last 20 minutes decided rugby games more in the past in my opinion, I reckon since the end of the last RWC there's been a shift though. There's countless ways to win a game and without stats we're just trading our own perceptions of games here, hopefully a resident stato comes to our aid.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Where Ireland had a peno to level it on 60 minutes? I swear that must be the most misremembered game of all time just because of the Ireland RWC QF meme!

I'd rebut the world cup knockouts you mentioned with this year's Heino semi finals and finals where the winners left everything in their control in the last 20 by dominating large parts of the 30-60 minute period. The last 20 minutes decided rugby games more in the past in my opinion, I reckon since the end of the last RWC there's been a shift though. There's countless ways to win a game and without stats we're just trading our own perceptions of games here, hopefully a resident stato comes to our aid.

I meant where were Ireland in the last 20 mins of that game? Madigan missed the penalty on 60. Argentina scored in the corner on 68 and then Imhoff finished it in the last 10.

And come on there is a big step from Heineken Cup to international rugby, especially the RWC. Last 20mins in knockout games is going to be massive at this RWC.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I meant where were Ireland in the last 20 mins of that game? Madigan missed the penalty on 60. Argentina scored in the corner on 68 and then Imhoff finished it in the last 10.

And come on there is a big step from Heineken Cup to international rugby, especially the RWC. Last 20mins in knockout games is going to be massive at this RWC.

Ok, I misunderstood you only the Ireland game, thought you meant it was an exception to games being decided in the last 20.

I took the Heino as an example of knockout games and it's a lot more recent than the RWC. For internationals I'd look at Ireland in 2018, the amount of games they won by scoring just before and/or after halftime was crazy, New Zealand have a lot of their games won by 60, I don't think England were smashing teams out of the park in the last 20 on the reg in their big run either. To win a World cup or even reach a final you are probably going to have to win at least two matches in the last twenty minutes but I reckon the less you're required to do so the better your chances are of winning the whole thing. So if I was a coach and had the option of a guaranteed fast start or a guaranteed try before or after halftime I'd be picking both over a guaranteed big last twenty.

Obviously a World Cup team will need to do it all.

 

[Scotty]

Agreed that they can't fix that. What they can fix is forgetting the fast starts that we just can't hold on to and remember that games are decided in the last 20 not the first 20. Back to the finishers - structure the 23 so that we have a bench who can ramp it up when the game is in the balance. If that means some of Binny, Mako, George, Itoje and Tuilagi get splinters for the first half I can live with that. Moon replacing Mako is a chink of light for opponents, vice versa is a sinking feeling.

Although i do believe you make a good point i dont fully agree. Mako and billy have to be starters as both of them have a workrate rivaled by non and have a very good fitness level for their workrate and size.

The fast start being able to catch a team off guard and to get early scores has the goal.

Maybe drob 1 or 2 to the bench for the finisher role but i think trust has been an issue by EJ. he trusts Faz amd when his head drops and keeps him on, he trusts youngs even when robson would make a difference. Although ford does have a few defensive issues he can control an attack better than faz, reigniting an attack, without ford leicester would have been relegated.

Also we need to see when our kicking game is being used against us which we dont seem to do. We just keep booting it down the field after we lose the advantage gained by the fast start, so if the tides turn against use then keep the ball and go through phases. And wait for the right time to kick(if it comes)

England have alot to sort but i don't believe its to late as the core is there.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Not really, I reckon the only six nations games that were decided in the last 20 were the two England didn't win and even then the 3rd quarter was more influential, a bunch were won in the first 20. Different teams win in different ways but from personal experience I reckon most tight games are won by the side who are in the ascendency for the majority of the 30-60 minute period.

I'd much prefer a fast start every time to a strong finish.

You're clearly not English then!

9.6.18: 24-3 up away vs RSA after 18 minutes. LOST.

16.6.18: 12-0 up away vs RSA after 13 minutes. LOST.

10.11.18: 15-0 up home vs NZ after 24 minutes. LOST

16.3.19: 31-0 up home vs Sco after 31 minutes. DRAW (just).

Those are off the top of my head, I'm sure there are others. In this years 6N Fra were out of sight at HT against Wal in the first match only to spectacularly blow it.

Whether these turnarounds are 2nd half or last 20 is a moot point. The point is that if you start off super fast, it's really difficult to sustain - physically and mentally - and as soon as an opponent, especially a good one, senses a dropping off in levels the whole mood and momentum changes. Common across many sports, Champions League wendyball last week was a great example.

Of course you can win with early leads, but Eng have often reminded me of a heavyweight who punches themselves out looking for the knockout in the early rounds. Haven't looked at details but my sense is that NZ more often accelerate in second half patches rather than having the whole thing done and dusted by HT.

Seem to recall that the tortoise won.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

You're clearly not English then!

9.6.18: 24-3 up away vs RSA after 18 minutes. LOST.

16.6.18: 12-0 up away vs RSA after 13 minutes. LOST.

10.11.18: 15-0 up home vs NZ after 24 minutes. LOST

16.3.19: 31-0 up home vs Sco after 31 minutes. DRAW (just).

Those are off the top of my head, I'm sure there are others. In this years 6N Fra were out of sight at HT against Wal in the first match only to spectacularly blow it.

Whether these turnarounds are 2nd half or last 20 is a moot point. The point is that if you start off super fast, it's really difficult to sustain - physically and mentally - and as soon as an opponent, especially a good one, senses a dropping off in levels the whole mood and momentum changes. Common across many sports, Champions League wendyball last week was a great example.

Of course you can win with early leads, but Eng have often reminded me of a heavyweight who punches themselves out looking for the knockout in the early rounds. Haven't looked at details but my sense is that NZ more often accelerate in second half patches rather than having the whole thing done and dusted by HT.

Seem to recall that the tortoise won.

English I'm not, trying to think of similar Ireland results and 24.11.13: 19-0 up home vs NZ after 18mins. LOST. is the only one that comes to mind in the Joe era and a long time before too. Herein we find our differences I reckon, slow starts always kill us.

Leinster losing after being 10-0 up has me terrified going into the RWC QFs, what brought our success last year at both levels was starts and being great front runners, before Saturday we had still shown that when we start well we win, the lack of composure before half time does not bode well.

 

[Scotty]

You're clearly not English then!

9.6.18: 24-3 up away vs RSA after 18 minutes. LOST.

16.6.18: 12-0 up away vs RSA after 13 minutes. LOST.

10.11.18: 15-0 up home vs NZ after 24 minutes. LOST

16.3.19: 31-0 up home vs Sco after 31 minutes. DRAW (just).

Those are off the top of my head, I'm sure there are others. In this years 6N Fra were out of sight at HT against Wal in the first match only to spectacularly blow it.

Whether these turnarounds are 2nd half or last 20 is a moot point. The point is that if you start off super fast, it's really difficult to sustain - physically and mentally - and as soon as an opponent, especially a good one, senses a dropping off in levels the whole mood and momentum changes. Common across many sports, Champions League wendyball last week was a great example.

Of course you can win with early leads, but Eng have often reminded me of a heavyweight who punches themselves out looking for the knockout in the early rounds. Haven't looked at details but my sense is that NZ more often accelerate in second half patches rather than having the whole thing done and dusted by HT.

Seem to recall that the tortoise won.

Just curious on them examples youve put, how would a slow start of helped? (Not trying to be a smart arse here incase its coming across that way) a slow start would maybe keep thwm motivated and less complacent later in the game but would that tranlate to a win?

A mental issue, i do get that thinking a game is won and switching off but it is the job of the coaches to bring on fresh players to change the game. And the leaders in the team to step up and get his team motivated.

A fast start shouldnt be named as the issue or cause of a slow finish.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Herein we find our differences I reckon, slow starts always kill us.

Yeah, I think Ireland have had a better record than us of protecting a first half lead.

Leinster losing after being 10-0 up has me terrified going into the RWC QFs, what brought our success last year at both levels was starts and being great front runners, before Saturday we had still shown that when we start well we win, the lack of composure before half time does not bode well.

Those were 2 pretty evenly matched teams and a brilliant example of how when momentum shifts it is bloody difficult to get it back (minor digression; very impressive from Sarries with the much maligned Farrell steering the ship....).

Momentum's at the centre of my argument. If have you have an early head of steam its going to drop off as no team can have their pedal to the floor the whole way through. The opposition don't need to panic as they still have time, then you've got the natural break in the rhythm that HT brings which also gives the coaches a chance to fix things.

Conversely if you've got the wind in your sails in the 60th minute, the oppo are tiring, they're going to be disrupted by subs, risks will start to be taken and its harder for coaches to influence. I'm not suggesting that we have all our best players on the bench, but there should be players on it who can positively up the ante. Its a 23 man game and the finishers were a very big part of our winning run.

Looking at this 6N vs Wales, a real crunch match. We led at HT and were 4 pts up with 12 to go. We didn't use 3 of our subs, of those we did Coka had 10 mins, Genge 3, Shields 3, Launchbury 16 and Williams 23 (recall Sinckler was losing it a bit?). No real chance for the subs to influence and of those that did come on only the raw Coka and Genge could be termed impact. Wales got the momentum and their 12 unanswered points in the last 12 mins pretty much sealed their GS.

Scotty, its not a binary either or. Take the points when they're on offer, but the challenge was fast start vs fast finish and if its a straight choice I'd take the latter. We can have Ita and Fra beaten by half time, but good sides (and Scotland) are inevitably going to bite back.

 

[bushytop]

Yeah, I think Ireland have had a better record than us of protecting a first half lead.



Those were 2 pretty evenly matched teams and a brilliant example of how when momentum shifts it is bloody difficult to get it back (minor digression; very impressive from Sarries with the much maligned Farrell steering the ship....).

Momentum's at the centre of my argument. If have you have an early head of steam its going to drop off as no team can have their pedal to the floor the whole way through. The opposition don't need to panic as they still have time, then you've got the natural break in the rhythm that HT brings which also gives the coaches a chance to fix things.

Conversely if you've got the wind in your sails in the 60th minute, the oppo are tiring, they're going to be disrupted by subs, risks will start to be taken and its harder for coaches to influence. I'm not suggesting that we have all our best players on the bench, but there should be players on it who can positively up the ante. Its a 23 man game and the finishers were a very big part of our winning run.

Looking at this 6N vs Wales, a real crunch match. We led at HT and were 4 pts up with 12 to go. We didn't use 3 of our subs, of those we did Coka had 10 mins, Genge 3, Shields 3, Launchbury 16 and Williams 23 (recall Sinckler was losing it a bit?). No real chance for the subs to influence and of those that did come on only the raw Coka and Genge could be termed impact. Wales got the momentum and their 12 unanswered points in the last 12 mins pretty much sealed their GS.

Scotty, its not a binary either or. Take the points when they're on offer, but the challenge was fast start vs fast finish and if its a straight choice I'd take the latter. We can have Ita and Fra beaten by half time, but good sides (and Scotland) are inevitably going to bite back.

Adding to this, the New Zealand of 2008-2015 (the benchmark for International success) always seemed to go up a gear in the last 20mins... and it's difficult to argue with their record.

 

[Derpus]

I think it's NZ's to lose and by more than we'd like to admit. (Although Mr. Super Computer is still a plinker) Only two teams in the competition know they can beat them, one of those is SA who won 1 game who have been utterly dominated by NZ for the last 10 years, the other is Ireland who have gone seriously off the boil, challenge is on for those two. You could maybe add Australia but God knows what's going on there.

England got close recently, Wales haven't in yonks, it could happen but it's rare enough to go to a World Cup and beat a team you haven't beaten for 7 years. France v NZ in 2007 comes to mind but even then they had literally everything going for them. No one else is good enough.

I'd back NZ's chances v the other 4 contenders with a hell of a lot of change. Shite enough craic.

Not even the big man knows.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I think this could be a very good, competitive World Cup.

NZ are rightly favourites, but this isn't a vintage crop like 2011 /15.

I think Wal have too much of a psychological problem with NZ to beat them, but if someone else can take down the ABs then Wal are my favourites (can't believe I just typed that).

Eng aren't where I hoped we'd be and Ire have done the old NZ trick of peaking between RWCs.

RSA are in with a shout. In the last Championship they beat the ABs once and it should have been twice. I won't be putting my house on them but they're heading in the right direction and capable of beating anyone on their day.

 

[ncurd]

but if someone else can take down the ABs then Wal are my favourites (can't believe I just typed that).

You go wash your mouth out with soap.

Have to say I can see it happening too if someone else knocks out NZ (I agree I think its too big a psychological barrier at this present time), Wales have managed to get a tendency to win matches they should be loosing and don't show any signs of stopping that yet. Mind you England were in a similar situation 2 years ago, now they lose matches they should be winning.



England get hefty leads in the first 20 is not a problem most teams if they get themselves into those position go on to win by bigger margins. The real question is why we can't sustain that momentum and I don't think its exhaustion I think we get lazy.