The best team won

Well it wasn't to be was it? It would have been a bit of a travesty if a well oiled machine like South Africa had lost to a group of 22 thrown together over the last few weeks, despite the fact I was of course willing it to happen. South Africa deserved their win and an interesting stat I saw (but can't remember exactly!) showed that England had scored 12 tries in the WC, compared to late twenties for South Africa - 28 I think.

Another set of stats that it would be interesting to review is the lineout. Matfield was clear man-of-the-match - not only did he dominate the lineout, with the help of some accurate throwing in, but he also made the tackle on Tait that pulled him down just short of the line, before the ball went out to Cueto who narrowly failed to score. That was as close as we came to a try, but I'm not sure if I agree with the Syd Millar, the IRB Chairman, who is suggesting that rule changes are required to make the game more interesting.

One thing that seemed interesting in the knock-out stages, and particularly in the SA v Argentina semi-final was the fact that scores mostly came from turnovers. So to make it difficult for players without the ball to challenge at the breakdown wouldn't seem to be the way to go for me, that is a brilliant skill and one that is vital to the game. But without changing the rules of the game, what about considering the number of points scored for say, an interception try. Could an argument be made for reducing the number of points scored for an interception try to 2, with the conversion to follow? Sides could therefore be a little happier to move the ball wide, knowing that if the ball is intercepted and someone runs the length, it is less of a match-changing catastrophe.

Getting back to the final, I'm not sure why there is all the controversy about the "try". From the angle looking from behind Cueto, his foot looked clearly in touch, so unless there is another angle that I haven't seen, there was no doubt whatsoever. A triumph for the fact that technology was used as a wrong decision could have altered who were the eventual World Champions. Cueto's comments seem strange to me - he was quoted as saying that he will always feel that he scored a try in the World Cup final....clearly he didn't! Given that no-one seems to question the use of technology to check on the act of the try being scored, I hope that this is extended to look at the whole move in the lead up to the try - if that had been the case New Zealand would have gone through against France.

Still - a great tournament. And England got to the final - not even the most one-eyed Englishman would have dared predict that before the tournament.

Next time - 2011

Interesting to read Clive Woodward's comments at the end of this piece about how important Wilkinson is, when he talks about the preparations for this tournament. Of course, he would say that they were better prepared in 2003, but I don't think many people could argue differently. His comments were:

"We arrived at the tournament in poor shape compared to 2003 and whatever happens on Saturday, I hope England's preparation over the next four years is far, far better than the last four years," he added.

"It's not fair on the players because as an England player you may only get one chance at winning a World Cup and you want your union and your coach to deliver the best possible programme that gives you every chance of winning."

I hope that, whatever the result on Saturday, England do get back to a similar approach to the 2003 World Cup. That means consistency of selection and a really professional approach - the feeling I get is that the players have pulled together against all odds to get to this final, but have been horribly let down by all that has gone on around them. In 2003 there was a genuine confidence that England could win even if they didn't play well. The problem with the 2007 squad is that they have to play at their absolute best (perhaps with the exception of Wilkinson's kicking) to beat the best - their lies the diffence.

If England win on Saturday (a very large if), they will have been lucky, although no-one would be able to take away from the immense guts and effort the players have put in. In 2011, we need to get back to where we were in 2003 - winning even when the luck was against us, and a lot of that comes from outside of the players on the pitch.

Can't get enough rugby?

Only a few days to go until the end of the World Cup so if you can't get enough of rugby and want to go and see various rugby imagery, Getty have a rugby exhibition on. You can see the details here - the images were selected by Clive Woodward to "feature iconic rugby moments from around the world".

Normally going to a gallery would get the full support of my wife, but she may not be altogether in favour of the subject matter in this instance!

Gloating

As normal the odd email has been floating around gloating over England's win last week v France. I thought it my duty to post this one!

Doh!

So confident was I in England's inability to reach the World Cup final that I booked a holiday over next weekend. So now I am trying to find somewhere on the internet that will definitely be showing the rugby; whatever happens thou I'm gutted to not be watching it in England.

Best part of the game on Saturday, other than than the final whistle going and the ensuing collective sigh of relief, must have been 10 seconds after Lewsey's try, not the try itself, but the pat on the head he gave Traille as he wandered past him.

Tackle of the match, has to go to Worsley for his tap tackle that saved the game, althou Stevens on Chabal would have won it in any other match.

Shaw & Sheridan awesome. Moody was quiet except for the charge down and gather. Easter too many penalties althou its been suggested he was unlucky with the one through the middle of the ruck. Gomersall not as good as last couple of games and his service and kicking from hand after the first 2 minutes was poor. Wilko looks a shadow of his former self and to be honest people were calling for him to be taken off - his penalty was easy but credit must be given for the drop goal which made it safe(!) Robinson looked better than I think I've seen him play before. It's a massive blow for Lewsey but I think the Tait/Hipkiss option which I think is what BA has to go for is a strong one.

But the French played poorly althou not as badly as Argentina who let themselves down massively last night. The French always knew that 1 point wasnt going to be enough but didnt go about scoring more in the right way. Hopeful kicks rather than probing corner kicks weren't enough to convince the English to roll over and go home.

So my predicted victors are in the final playing England who i turned my back on at the start of the tournament, dismissing them as Quarter Finalists and no better. If England win next week it will be one of the biggest sporting come backs in history and will leave me with a smile on my face for a long time to come

Turnaround

Something that has amused me today has been the complete turnaround in everyone's views on the state of English rugby. Just a couple of weeks ago, the consensus was that England's players were tired, were playing too much attritional rugby in the Premiership, and that the All Blacks were lucky that they could pull their players out of the Super 14 to rest them before the big tournament. Now the perceived wisdom is that England's players are battle-hardened from relegation battles and competitive rugby, whilst the Super 14 lot are unused to elimination rugby and the toughness of the international game. The truth probably lies in maintaining a balance between the two, but I have just found it rather amusing how everyone's views have changed, almost overnight.

Kenny Rogers - his message for England v France

Kenny is getting behind the team! But only if they win!

Last minute penalties

Oh, how nice it would be for a re-run of 2003, when we knew we had the game won going into the final few minutes. But unfortunately I'm not sure it will be like that....most likely it could come down to a crucial passage of play towards the end of the game.

Last week, with 3 minutes remaining and with England looking relatively safe in defence, Joe Worsley decided to scoop the ball back with his hand in a ruck, thus giving Australia the chance of a match winning score. This may be a little (or a lot!) harsh, but I wonder if Worsley is the sharpest tool in the box. His clapping to the crowd as he was substituted having just injured a Uraguayan in the last World Cup being another example.

So at the end of the working week and with nothing to worry about this weekend other than preparation to take in two huge games of rugby, what did I find keeping me from sleeping past 6:30 this morning? I couldn't help but fear Worsley will do it again!

As all players who have played the game will know, as an attacking team goes through phase after phase and is making ground, particularly in the opposition 22, there is a gradual need for the defensive side to take more risks to stop them. As they go through the phases, 3 points against sometimes is the best option, if you can get away without a sin bin as well. So the players need to use common sense to decide when to take risks that could result in a penalty or even a sin bin. And the impact of not having any common sense is magnified in those last 5 minutes with 3 points or less between the teams.

Before the tournament I would have thought Lewis Moody could be the one to cause us concern when it came to giving away vital penalties in the final few minutes of a match. What woke me up with a start this morning was the realisation that Worsley is far more likely to give a vital penalty away, and given Ashton's use of the replacement bench so far, Worsley is more likely to be on the pitch in those last few minutes than Moody.

I can only hope that it was a dream and not a premonition!

How England can win

1) Up front.
All the talk has been of the England forwards' performance against the Wallabies, but that was last week. The French are bigger, stronger and more streetwise than the Aussie pack. This is no more so than in the front row. Andrew Sheridan's career is built on two performances against weak Australian scrums. It's time for him to do the same against a much better outfit, the likes of De Villiers and Milloud will be much tougher. England will have to give the forward performances of their lives in the tight.

2) Jonny.
Carter and co. missed goals against the French, the points would have won them the game. Jonny's been strangely off-target in the tournament so far. There does seem to be some oddity with the balls since other kickers have struggled too (Paterson excepted), but this week he needs to return to form. If he kicks 100%, England have a real chance in what will be a very tight game.

3) Kicking from hand.
The All Blacks missed several kicks to touch in the first half last weekend, giving the French a platform for their tactics of choice, i.e. their own kicking game. Wilkinson and Catt need to find touch, and give their pack a chance to get downfield and compete for posession.

4) Stop Jauzion.
France's second half comeback centred around Jauzion. He was involved three times in the run up to Dusatoir's try, and scored one himself. He was putting runners in space, and was regularly popping up at first receiver, with Beauxis reduced to a spectator before he made way. Stop him, stop France, find out if they have plan c. This probably means Michalak coming on, in which case all the pressure will be on him to deliver, and it will be up to Lewis Moody to make him feel it.

Three points on each of the disappointed sides

Part I
New Zealand:
The Kiwis probably don't need to overreact as much as they are going to. They actually didn't go too far wrong. In fact their three main failings stem from the same point:

1) Rotation.
It's a sound idea, giving backup players of experience so that they are ready when called upon. But in World Cup year, it's time to bring out your best XV. Though they were close, I'm not sure that Henry and his staff were ever 100% certain of their best side, and the selection was a little out last Saturday. Where was Aaron Mauger, the man who opens up holes for the runners? Where was Howlett, who offers a different kind of threat to the more physical players? Surely Robinson didn't bring that much more of a physical presence than Chris Jack? Next time, pick the best side and run with it.

2) Leadership.
A knock on of poor selection is a lack of leadership. Leadership is not just about having a good captain, it's about having leaders around him. In 1999 and 2003 Australia and England had leaders all over the pitch. In 2003 New Zealand fell apart, because when the going got tough, Reuben Thorne (never the best captain anyway) had no-one to back him up, no experience, as Mitchell had jetissoned everyone apart from Justin Marshall. This time, the absence of the players mentioned in point 1, Mauger and Jack were absent. Should Umaga have been allowed to retire? He may have been past his prime, but the side responded to his leadership. England were ridiculed for selecting the likes of Dallaglio, yet they provide direction, and know how to seize the initiative at the key moment. Lesson for 2011, get your experienced leaders on the pitch. Getting this right is critical for losing that chokers' tag. Replace the side with youngsters, and they might be overawed by the situation. Stick with all old timers, and the scars of the past might be too much to overcome. Build a balanced side, with experience in key areas, but youthful energy, and dispatch that unwanted label.

3) Tactics.
Again, this stems from the above points. When their tactics didn't bring the reward they expected, New Zealand decided to go for the direct approach, with a little success, but not enough. Without Carter on the pitch, they seemed to lack the nous to change their game again, and apart from a badly timed effort from McAllister, the drop goal never seemed to be in their minds. They need to have players who can do plan a and plan b, but who can make plan c up on the spot when necessary.

I think the All Blacks got a lot right off the pitch, so get these things right on the pitch, and in fours years time, they will be favourites (again). But who wins against New Zealand in New Zealand?

Funnies

Sorry to all Antipodeans but I felt I had to post these. The bottom one should be captioned "born to rule"!

France played better?

Interesting talking to people in my office about the rugby. The general consensus seems to be that France played better and deserved to win. I thought the All Blacks shaded it (despite playing poorly), as the "real" scoreline would have demonstrated, if the forward pass had been given. I also thought they showed in the first half that if they had clicked they would have won by 40 points, they were a pass away from a score a couple of times.

In the UK at least, I think I may be in a minority of one in suggesting that the All Blacks were the better team.

The rules of the game by Wayne Barnes

Needless to say the emails have started already. A Kiwi mate has sent me one titled as above which shows how they feel about referee Wayne Barnes' performance on Saturday. In addition to the point about forward passes, I also agree with the obstruction point - France got away with one in the middle of the field that looked very similar to what was a sin-binnable offence for New Zealand.

"Hello, my name is Wayne Barnes. For those of you who do not know me, I was the referee in the France versus All Blacks quarterfinal at the 2007 Rugby World Cup. I wanted to be a referee since a young age when my dearest Daddy sent me to a nice little all boys school in southern England. The big boys (and even the little boys) picked on me and turned me into the wiener that I am today. One of those mean little boys was a New Zealander; he made me cry to Mummy all night after poking me with a small twig. I was going to be a lawyer but my eyesight became so bad I had to give up that career to become a referee. I never lost my passion for English Rugby and I have developed my own set of rules to give the English Rugby team the best chance of winning the World Cup, and of course, New Zealand the least.

1) Being run into is a yellow cardable offense if it’s between the 55th and 56th minute of a match. See Soccer for an example of this rule.
2) A forward pass must travel a least ten metres forwards for it to be deemed forward, otherwise it shall be considered 'flat' (it's only applicable in a blue jersey).
3) A player is only deemed to be offside if he is at least 2 metres in front of the hindmost feet (naturally only applicable if in a blue jersey).
4) If a player is in front of the kicker, he need not retreat if in a blue jumper.
5) A team wearing gray cannot be awarded a penalty in the second half of a match.
6) A team in blue can use their hands at anytime, regardless of whether a ruck has formed, where they enter the said ruck or whether they are on their feet.
7) A ruck is only a ruck if it has been called as such by the blue team’s captain.
8) Touch judges may only enter the game to rule on "penalties" committed by players wearing silver. At no other stage must they interfere with the referee's running of the game.
9) If a try has been scored by a player not wearing blue, the video referee must spend at least 10 minutes trying to find a reason to not award it.
10) A scrum is only deemed to have been wheeled 90 degrees if it has been in fact wheeled 180 degrees.

Disclaimer: These rules have been written in order to destroy southern hemisphere teams and give England an easier path in the world cup. They could be dangerous if found in the wrong hands."

It was a blatant forward pass!

As has already been predicted(!), I feel obliged to post about the French move that led to their match-winning try. There is no doubt from anyone that the pass that put Michelak into space was forward - it wasn't one of those iffy ones that the commentators say may have been forward - it was miles forward. You could see the New Zealand players react with gestures of a forward pass straight away.

Somehow, in what must have been one of the unluckiest moments ever in world sport (up there with Maradona's hand of god), the ref and nearby touch judge blinked at the same time, just before the ball was passed, and reopened there eyes with the ball in Michelak's hands. That has to be the only explanation doesn't it!?

I'm no fan of Graham Henry (who managed to create a loss to Australia when he was in charge of the Lions when, at that time, the England team by themselves would have beated Australia by more than 10 points), but he must be cursing his luck and the fact he has lost his job. His team played terribly, by their own high standards, but should have still won but for a refereeing mistake, and that is how World Cups are won....still winning when you have the inevitable off game.

Now that England know the rules of the tournament, maybe they should work on some lethal tactics for the semi-final....send their wingers down to the "end zone" and let quarterback Wilkinson throw the ball to them. You never know, the ref and touch judges might blink at an inopportune moment again - it has to be worth a go.

OK, rant over. It wouldn't have happened if TV replays were used, or if the skipper could appeal against 3 decisions, for example. Whatever it takes, we have to find a way of stopping blatant wrong decisions from putting an inferior team into the semis. But of course, it's great news for England's chances....

Those crazy French (part deux)

So, France won, and as Ed said, Laporte looks like a genius. Well, sort of. His plan was clearly to keep it tight, be in range at half time and then hit the Kiwis in the second half, without the time to recover. And they did, credit to them. I still stand by my earlier post, in the first half, they played the kicking game, and were facing a meek defeat. Jauzion hardly saw any of the ball. In the second half, they came out and played, crucially, Jauzion saw the ball. In the build up to Dusatoir's try, he was involved several times, and made telling contributions. There is a caveat to all this: there were two forward passes in the run up to Jauzion's try, and I'm sure Ed will post about that. In fact, this game didn't so much remind me of '99, as 2003, when a previously misfiring Aussie team did for the All Blacks. That game showed a perfect example of a clearly thought out game plan, executed to the word. Anyway, for the above reasons, Jauzion was my man of the match, though Dusatoir looks like a real find.

Wayhey!

have it........

off for one or two beers now.

havent stopped smiling.

Awesome display by England, yes we shouldnt have been so happy, it was after all only a quarter final, but what a performance, even without Wilko at his best.

:)

This made me laugh

Saw this story the other day. What kind of idiot taunts an 18 stone Tongan rugby player, who is probably still in a bad mood from being knocked out of the world cup? That's just asking for trouble. It's up there with the thief who tried to run off with a man's luggage at Seville airport in 1999. Unfortunately that man was part of the USA athletics team, and he and his mate Maurice Greene, then the fastest man alive, ran the thief down in a matter of seconds.

Farrell gone......

So Farrell has succumbed to another injury - there is talk of Catt, Barkley and Hipkiss as replacements. Hipkiss would surely mean too much of a rejig - after all Tait is a wing not an outside centre......Barkley had a shocker against Tonga but looked good in earlier stages......and Catt was not even in the squad of 22.

Personally I might be tempted to do something stupid and try Lewsey at 12, where he has played for Wasps and give us something else in the backline. More realistically thou Barkley will start play like turd and will be replaced by Catt on the 50 minute mark.

I have to date been very neutral where ever possible but I have finally lost it. I like most people who know sport, especially rugby, expect England to be demolished in something akin to the recent Ashes series, after the battling series in England, the Aussies were too strong at home, as they are expected to be on Saturday.

But I hope we stuff them, their incessant whinging, bitching, complaining about everything right from the start even before the whistle has gone has finally made me lose it. Apparently they have been complaining that we have chosen a dirty squad (read here we have chosen Shaw and Regan) and have had meetings with the referee's official. Play the game boys, you should win this with your eyes closed, leave the stupid chat behind and simply front up.

Those crazy French...

I blogged at the start of the tournament about sides that picked players out of position, and highlighted the French selecting a wing at fullback. Lo and behold the Argentinians targeted him successfully, the French lost, and the idea was binned (I'm not suggesting it was anything to do with my blog, I'm just saying). Anyway, you'd think Laporte had learned his lesson, but he's made a couple of odd choices for the match against the Kiwis, the most obvious of which, is Damien Traille at fullback. Now Traille is a good centre, a competent fly half, and has a huge boot, which probably gives him decent basics for fullback on paper, but to get his first start in a quarter-final against the All Blacks is a bit odd. Laporte insists it's because of his kicking game. I'll come back to that in a minute. The other slightly strange one is picking Beauxis at ten. By all accounts he did well against Georgia, but to leapfrog Skrela and Michalak is still strange. Neither has been that good, and form counts for a lot, but Georgia is one thing, the All Blacks are another. It looks to me like Laporte has picked Beauxis for his control and kicking, ditto Traille. I'm not sure what the French need on the eve of this match is more control and kicking. They need something out of the ordinary, and I'm not sure leaving out Poitrenaud and Michalak is the answer. They might bomb, or they might produce another performance like 1999, but surely having a go is better than trying a conservative style that will probably produce a solid performance and dignified defeat. Being French they'll probably produce the game of their lives and prove me wrong (who knew Lamaison was such a good running flyhalf in '99?), but I'd like to see them go for it, with talented players who know their positions, rather than slightly uninspiring players who are out of position.

Why, Why, Why......

1) Vickery in for Stevens?

2) Lewsey shoved back onto the wing when we need a defensive 15 and a man that can finish on the wing?

3) Where is Rees, surely Corry should have gone into the second row and Rees slotted in. I can only presume he is a) injured or b) has said something very rude indeed about BA's relatives.

Farrell and Vickery in...

I don't suppose that it comes as a surprise that there are changes in England's line up for the game for Australia, given the fact that we don't seem to know our best team and the unpredictable nature of all previous selection decisions! The latest team news is here.

Team of the group stage

Bit of a lengthy post this (got a bit carried away), but hopefully will be food for thought. Given that most of the big sides have yet to really be tested, they have very few representatives in this XV. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Argentina and Fiji dominate, as they are surely the two sides who have led the way in terms of achievement so far. Who will still be in this team after the final? Who is missing from the list?

1 - Rodrigo Roncero, Argentina
The Argentinian front row have been outstanding in all facets of the game. They have scrummaged with typical Argentinian relish, and made a huge impact around the field, tackling and carrying at key times. Roncero's work-rate has been prominent throughout, especially against Ireland.

2 - Mario Ledesma, Argentina
The Pumas' best forward against France, always in the right place at the right time, and still managed to recover to put in a performance against Georgia four days later. The aggressive approach of the Argentinian pack has forced turnover after turnover throughout the group stages.

3 - Juan Martín Scelzo, Argentina
No-one has particularly caught the eye at tighthead so far, but Scelzo has been a part of the fabulous Argentinian front row effort, and deserves to be alongside his colleagues. Honourable mentions go to Avtandil Kopaliani for Georgia's narrow loss to Ireland, Kisi Pulu's performances for Tonga, and Matt Stevens' showings for England.

4 - Kele Leaware, Fiji
The difficulty for Fiji has always been marrying their audacious sevens skills to good 15-a-side basics, and laying a good platform. Leaware has epitomised their efforts, at the centre of a massive effort from the pack, and still managing to score three tries from the second row.

5 - Sebastian Chabal, France
Aside from Leaware, no-one has really shone in the second row, so Chabal gets the nod. His best position is still number 8, but he has handled the line-outs and the work in the tight well, and he adds another dimension to any side that picks him. It will be interesting to see what role he plays in the quarter-finals.

6 - Akapusi Qera, Fiji
This is cheating slightly, as he's an openside, but Qera has been dynamic, and is a real try scoring threat from any range, as he has already shown in the group stages. Worth acknowledging Elsom's hat-trick and the general high standards of the All Black back row too at this point.

7 - Nili Latu, Tonga
At the heart of everything good for Tonga, and in the absence of memorable performances from the big name opensides, Latu has been a model of how to play the role, linking backs and forwards, and ever present in attack and defence, scoring at crucial times.

8 - Vasco Uva, Portugal
The Portugese went home without a win, but they surprised with their passion and durability, and their captain's bravery stood out against the odds. He missed their last couple of games through injury, but is seeking a professional club, and on the basis of his performances, should get one.
An honourable mention goes to Finau Maka reproducing his Toulouse performances for Tonga.

9 - Augustin Pichot, Argentina
A familiar face to fans throughout Europe, he may not quite have the incisive pace of old, but the way he has marshalled his side in attack and defence, whilst providing good service, and a running threat, has illustrated everything that a scrum half should be.
Fourie du Preez was awesome against England and comes a close second, only because he wasn't under much pressure. Mosese Rauluni also deserves a mention.

10 - Juan Martin Hernandez, Argentina
Outrageously talented, and not afraid of showing it, Hernandez initially left lingering doubts about his tactical ability, but his array of kicks off both feet and his ability to create chances out of nothing have turned the tide. It would still be nice to see him kick less ball away, but the tactics are working for his side.

11 - Vilimoni Delasau, Fiji
Seized the match against the Welsh in a way that wingers rarely do. Went looking for the ball, scored tries, and created the match winning score.

12 - Matt Giteau, Australia
Harsh on Felipe Contempomi, but the Australian backline has been the best so far, and Giteau has been pulling the strings: putting team-mates into space, running supporting lines, making breaks and kicking goals. With any luck Stade Francais will throw all their owner's wealth at the Australian, as the world deserves to see a Hernandez/Giteau partnership in action.

13 - Seru Rabeni, Fiji
Familiar to Leicester fans, he has proved a handful for defences throughout the tournament, has tackled hard, and was instrumental in the critical win against Wales.

14 - Bryan Habana, South Africa
Impossible not to select, South Africa's opponents know exactly what's coming, and yet he remains untouchable. His compatriot, JP Pietersen has also impressed.

15 - Chris Latham, Australia
Somewhat unfortunate to have to compete with Matt Burke and Mat Rogers earlier in his career, over the last couple of years Latham has made the Australian number 15 jersey his own. He is elusive and deceptively strong, whilst his kicking game is underrated, and all of these elements have been on display throughout the group stage. Has a habit of scoring against England, so expect to see him on the scoresheet in the quarter-final. Loki Crichton also deserves a mention for dragging a disappointing Samoan side towards respectability.

The doomed England selection...

The logical part of me thinks that England have two hopes against Australia - Bob and No. But there's always that little bit of you that thinks we can overturn all common sense and magically pull out a superb performance - it's only natural to hope!

The first thing is to get the side right. There seems to be a momentum about the side that it would be good to maintain, which suggests that Vickery shouldn't come back....just one selection that Andy Mizner recommended. I also agree with his view that Corry should move to 2nd row, although I think Shaw is unlucky to miss out. So the pack would be:

Sheridan, Chuter, Stevens, Kay, Corry, Moody, Rees, Easter.

Then in the backs, we need to make way for Robinson. And I'm worried about Tait, fronting up to the Aussie battering ram backs, but now is not the time to bring Hipkiss in. So it's a straight battle between Cueto and Lewsey for one place, given Sackey's try-scoring form. I'd go for Lewsey, but his form hasn't been near his best so far in this World Cup so I could understand it if Cueto gets the nod. So backs:

Gomarsall, Wilkinson, Robinson, Barkely, Tait, Sackey, Lewsey.

And the subs bench is going to be vital. I'd go for:

Richards, Farrell, Worsley, Shaw, Regan, Hipkiss, Vickery.

Unfortunately, I don't think it matters which combination is selected, there is only ever going to be one result.

Fantasy Rugby

Following on from my earlier post he is the top team of the tournament so far from a fantasy league perspective......obviously there is some bias towards players who have played more games...........

Front Row: Tincu (Rom), Pulu (Tonga), Roncero (Arg)

2nd Row: Leawere (Fiji), Nallet (Fra)

Back Row: Williams (Wal), McCaw (NZ), Smith (SA)

9: Ellisalde (Fra)

10: Contepomi (Arg)

Backs: Montgomery (SA), Habana (SA), Williams (Wal), Rokocoko (NZ), Latham (Aus)

Not an Englishman, Scotsman or an Irishman but 2 Welshman despite their earlier than scheduled exit. For those wondering Corry and Sackey are the best 2 English players so far.

England through, Ireland & Wales Out

Well England did what they were expected to I guess, decent enough game and progression through to the QFs which was a must. Although I have repeatedly heard that it would have been better had we lost to Tonga and thus allowed a chance to get rid of BA and sort out the debacle that is English rugby, no hope should be taken into the game against Australia, and then maybe, just maybe something special can happen.
Hopefully Robinson will be back to take the place of the bumbling Cueto who looks out of his depth at both 15 and on the wing. Lewsey although not such an attacking force at 15 should retain his spot, Sackey looks like he is enjoying himself, Tait, who i am fairly sure is a wing rather than a 13, was hindered by the incompetence of Barkley who should be sent home on the back of that performance, but you would assume after Farrell's decent 30 minutes he will start ahead of Barkley although the other suggestion is a straight 10/12 swop with Wilko.
Easter did the basics well and Moody looked more controlled than ever, I don't think Corry is good enough to play in the back row at the moment so would switch him into the second row for Borthwick who is a line-out specialist and nothing more. In comes Rees which is a must in my opinion if we are to stand any chance. Kay won his ball and caused Tonga trouble round the park. Stevens, Sheridan & Chuter deserve to retain their places.

And so to Ireland who seem to have lost the plot completely, yes they had difficult games against France and Argentina but even against the groups minnows they struggled. Stringer O'Gara - byebye your time is up. O'Connell once the world's best second row, no longer the best second row on the park. Hickie looked worth his recall and BOD showed his spirit was still there but its time for a new batch in Ireland and perhaps that should include the coach too?!

Which is what Wales have done, speculation still exists, apparently a lot of people have said they don't want it - can't blame them - even Nick Mallet has decided he would rather work with the Italians.

Ireland part II

So the Irish are gone. Given how badly they fell apart on big occasions this year, the wisdom of giving O'Sullivan a new four-year contract before the tournament is looking suspect, whilst a number of the big name players must now look at themselves and ask how hard they are willing to work to regain their reputations. Funnily enough, in defeat against Argentina, they did show glimpses of good rugby for their tries, but it was too little, too late. In terms of the way forward for them, I can think of three starting points.
1 - Like all Northern Hemisphere sides, they were outmuscled, even the Scots looked more physical when they met in a warm-up. They need to add this dimension their game. This will allow them to play the dynamic game that they aspire to.
2 - They need to rediscover the intensity that marked their big wins against Australia, England and South Africa in recent years.
3 - The management needs to address the psychological issues within the squad, and somehow shake the chokers tag.

Ireland

Of all the home nations, the Irish have probably been the most disappointing side. At least England were expected to fare badly, but the Irish have been a let down so far. After a productive four years since the last tournament, they must have entered 2007 with the aim of winning the Six Nations and getting to the world cup semi-finals, yet somehow they have lost ground, and seem to be following the traditional All-Black pattern of peaking between tournaments. Aside from the many playing and personal issues that seem to be dogging them, the most worrying is the way that they have begun to revert to type. For years they have been followed by the tag of plucky underdogs who fight hard with passion but not much finesse or discipline, and crumble whenever faced with any expectation. Four good years of wins in big games seemed to have got that out of their system, but in 2007 they have choked on the big occasions, their discipline has slipped, and perhaps worst of all, their passion has seemed absent. The best prepared, most professional side in Irish history, containing a number of modern greats, have been poor.

The Irish campaign now boils down to one match. They need to find their passion, but not lose their discipline. They need to find their cutting edge, but not lose their composure. The quarter-finals would be just about an acceptable exit point for the side, so long as they go down fighting. If they come up short against Argentina, Eddie O'Sullivan's four-year contract extension might be looking a bit hasty. That said, no side plays the role of the underdog like the Irish, and I can't quite bring myself to write them off. My prediction for the weekend is a narrow and agonising defeat to the Argentinians.

No try!

I must have been watching a different replay to the video ref who gave Samoa's try on Saturday. I'm normally pretty good at being impartial (I like to think!), but I was 100% sure that the Samoan effort wasn't a try (despite what Stuart Barnes was waffling on about), as the guy didn't have the ball under control at any point. It was a knock-on and a drop out to England. No doubt.

So why was it given a try?

As someone who has banged on about how technology needs to be used more in sport, I found it somewhat embarrassing to realise that human error can still play a part with video analysis. But we can't let poor use of technology get in the way of using it as necessary to make crucial match-changing decisions....

Gomarsall passes test

Reading various newspaper match reports, it was interesting to see who pundits rated in the England win against Samoa. For me Gomarsall was man-of-the-match by miles and it's good to see that the BBC blog thought the same! I also read an article by Jeremy Guscott that said much the same thing...but there were many that didn't seem to rate his performance as highly as I did.

England's tactics seemed a little awry which is why it's difficult to say Wilkinson or Lewsey had particularly good games. They routinely kicked the ball down the middle to allow counter-attacks when we know that loose ball is what Samoa thrive off. We also know that Samoa's lineout is weak, so why not kick for touch? We didn't seem to be interested in kicking for touch until the final 3 minutes - just when we should have been opening things up to get the 4th try and a bonus point!

That said, at least it was a win. My team for Friday against Tonga would be identical but for three changes - Vickery in for Stevens (although Stevens played well I thought), Hipkiss in for Tait and Rees in for Worsley. We seemed to lack dynamism so I would be seriously tempted to bring Moody in for Corry at 6, but Corry's lineout work just settled it....Moody can come on and energise things in the 2nd half.

Sour grapes

Not strictly World Cup stuff I know, but is it just me that is wondering whether there is something amiss with Ben Cohen's attitude? He has bought himself out of his contract at Northampton after being overlooked for the captaincy.

Unless there is more to the story than is told in the press (which is probably the case!), it seems like a case of a spoilt kid not getting his own way, and then throwing his toys out of the pram.

England Team for Samoa

Lewsey, Sackey, Tait, Barkley, Cueto, Wilkinson, Gomarsall; Sheridan, Chuter, Stevens, Shaw, Kay, Corry (capt), Worsley, Easter.
Replacements: Regan, Freshwater, Borthwick, Moody, Richards, Farrell, Hipkiss.

Just quickly before I go and do some work, finally Lewsey gets to play at 15, how does Sackey retain his place? Smallest ever midfield? Chuter needs to throw straight although he should have been starting based on his form last year. How can Rees, the only English forward who has looked comfortable get dropped? Hipkiss, who for me, was one of the stars of the premiership last year must be pretty hacked off.....pleased to see Gomers starting as well as I reckon he has the best pass of the 9s out there........

World Cup World 15, so far........

Possibly a little early but here's my initial thoughts on who has impressed

15. Percy Montgomery (SA) / Chris Latham (Aus)

14. Brian Habana (SA)

13. Stirling Mortlock (Aus)

12. Tom Shanklin (Wales)

11. Vilimoni Delasau (Fiji)

10. Dan Carter (NZ)

9. Fourie du Preez (SA) / Agustín Pichot (Arg)

8. Finau Maka (Tonga)

7. Richie McCaw (NZ)

6. Jerry Collins (NZ)

5. Victor Matfield (SA)

4. Sebastian Chabal (Fra)

3. Carl Hayman (NZ)

2. John Smit (SA)

1. Os du Randt (SA)

So there's a bit of bias in there, Chabal is probably only in there for his 50 metre solo effort, and whilst Maka isnt the best 8 in the world he has impressed me so far. A lack of All Blacks in the back line is perhaps indicative more of their opponents so far and Shanklin sneaks in as the only home nations player......

Replacing Noon and the fly-half conundrum

With Jamie Noon out of the competition, England have what could be the last chance to inject some creativity into their squad. Noon never lets anyone down, and is a tough competitor, but I have always had doubts about his quality, and with four other centres in the squad, there is a chance to redress the balance, espeically in light of the fly-half situation. Wilkinson and Barkley may be nearing fitness, but it would not be a huge surprise if either got injured again, so I hope that Toby Flood gets a call-up. He looked comfortable on the international stage during the Six Nations, and was willing to try things, and some youth would be a welcome addition to the squad.
As for the fly-half position, it was never Mike Catt's best position, and he has not played a test there since 1999, but I was disappointed by his lack of imagination during the South Africa game. He was probably following orders, but the number of times he opted to crash it up himself, or use Farrell, was woefully lacking in imagination. He should not be the scapegoat, but if Wilkinson and Barkley are back for the next game, I would bring them both in at 10 and 12, with instructions that if plan a fails, to back themselves to try something different for plan b. Goodness knows England need to do something to salavge some pride. At least Samoa's defeat today has made progression to the quarter-finals more likely, though maybe it would be better if the side could just hurry up and go home.

The 10 Debate.

Well I was just about to write about Farrell being at 10, but Sky Sports has just told me Catt has been named at 10. My guess is that Catt and Farrell will interchange consistently, possible with an emphasis on Farrell play the short channel in defence.

But to go back to the point I was going to make, Ashton simply must have considered this scenario a possibility. With Wilko as fragile as a china vase, and the heavy hitting size of Samoa, Tonga and South Africa there was always a chance Barkley would get injured as well. So logic dictates he must, in leaving out Flood (or Hodgson) from the squad, have considered who his No. 3 fly-half was. So was the suggestion that Farrell was at 10 a bit of gamesmanship or had Ashton simply not got a clue who was his back up back up 10?

England's chances...

I hope I'm proved wrong but I'm feeling more than a little concerned for Farrell. The BBC rugby editor has summed things up nicely.

So if we assume that the match on Friday is a loss by more than 7 points, the Tonga game is a must win, and England will have been pleased with what they saw in the Tonga v USA match. A 10 point margin and just 3 tries means that England might still make it through the group, even after a potential mauling tomorrow night....

Farrell is number 10 - official!

As you can probably tell from my last post, I'm a bit concerned about this, but Farrell will play 10 against South Africa. He's got balls, but to be thrown in for your first international game at fly-half in a huge game is a big ask and I'm sure he's feeling more nerves than he's letting on.

As for his goal-kicking - I feel confident that he'll slot the penalties just outside the 22 and fairly central, unlike France's Screla. But his excellent record in rugby league doesn't include taking penalties from tight angles and great length, as tends to happen in rugby union. In a game where the absolute best England can hope for is a win by the odd point, Farrell has to feel more than a little pressure. On the other hand, he has a huge chance to become an England hero. Fingers crossed!

Farrell at 10?

With Barkley potentially injured, it's interesting hearing the views of the various experts on who should play where. Sean Edwards is convinced that Farrell should play 10. While I completely agree with him that Farrell is at his best as first receiver, it seems a huge risk to put him in there for a big game, without giving him the luxury of having played there before at international level. Just another example of how badly prepared the team are this time.

It's also interesting to hear that Ian Robertson reckons that England will call for Toby Flood and throw him in despit issues with jet-lag. But he also says something that will tantalise all England supporters: "I wouldn't completely rule out Wilkinson, he has trained and was running around and the ankle seems to be all right, so it's not impossible."

England announce team for South Africa

England team: Robinson, Lewsey, Noon, Catt, Sackey, Barkley, Perry, Easter, Rees, Corry, Kay, Shaw, Vickery (captain), Regan, Sheridan. Replacements: Chuter, Stevens, Borthwick, Moody, Gomarsall, Farrell.

Cueto, Dallaglio & Worsley miss out completely. Robinson switches to 15 and Sackey, Corry and Easter come in.

Wilko is still out and apparently Barkley is off to have a scan on his hip, if he is ruled out that leaves Catt at 10 and Farrell having to play so we have a kicker!! Althou if my memory serves Gomarsall used to be able to kick so perhaps that would make more sense that playing Farrell.

I don't understand why Dallaglio was dropped completely, he would still have been a more useful impact player than either Borthwick or Moody, and Corry could have acted as 2nd row cover......and as previously stated Lewsey should be at 15.

Muscle

Something I touched on when writing about the opening game of the tournament, was how physical Argentina were, and this has beem a recurring theme throughout the opening round. One of the many areas that New Zealand have dominated over the last 3-4 years is fitness and strength. Witness the sheer power with which they have been hitting rucks since the start of the 2005 Lions tour. The other Tri-nations sides followed suit, and it seems that whilst the Six nations sides have been dawdling, the less illustrious sides have been taking note. The Canadians' first half performance agasinst Wales owed a lot to a direct, physical approach, as did that of the Namibians against Ireland. These smaller nations will be blown away by the southern sides (Namibia shipped a hundred points against SA a few months back), but against the less powerful northern sides, they are able to put up a solid barrier, and make hard yards with a simple pick and drive approach. If a six nations side is going to win in 2011, some serious leaps forward need to be made in terms of conditioning. There is no excuse for professional outfits being off the pace like that. At the very least it would negate the somewhat tedious (though not in the right context) picking and driving on the line that has been the tactic of the tournament so far.

Oh dear, oh dear

So I guess someone should comment on the England game, although I didnt see it I have heard and read enough to suggest that it was actually worse than we were anticipating. Saying that all 6 Nations teams have struggled with inferior teams........Numerous rumours and suggestions are flying about, but the crux of the matter is simply that the players don't believe in themselves - they dont carry themselves with any degree of confidence and they hate the label of being world champs (although they wont have to worry about that for much longer).

A lot will be said about the club v country debate again in the next few weeks and until the matter is resolved, the key being that the southern hemisphere have complete backing through their structures, England in particular will no longer be able to compete with the Southern Hemisphere. There will also be talk about the lack of English players coming through the Premiership clubs forcing us to rely on Dad's Army mark 2. There is an interesting article here http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/09/10/multinational_club_scene_dilut.html which suggests what an alternative English based side would look like compared to an English National side.

How pleased was I that I could sit down yesterday and watch 4 games of rugby in a row - very! But I guess after Friday I'll have to choose another team to support........

Jones starts when fit...surely?

It was interesting to see the effect that Stephen Jones had on the Wales match yesterday. Yes, it was only Canada, and it was the second-half when gaps were likely to emerge for him to take advantage, but he did so very well. This BBC article surprised me though: Jones must play at fly-half. I've always assumed that there's no doubt that Jones plays fly-half when fully fit....is there really any doubt about that, even considering the excellent progress that James Hook has made?

If he's fit he has to play. In fact, if a Lions team was announced for Xmas now, he would have to be selected, given that the only player who could compete with him, Wilkinson, is struggling with so many injuries that he's not consistently at the top of his game. So come on Wales - play your best team and don't debate Jones' position as fly-half.

Google get in the spirit of rugby

Google often does various versions of its logo based on the current news and it's rugby's turn today. Good to see that the American based company are embracing rugby....

Argentina spoil France's party

What a superb way to open the world cup. Not a classic in terms of skill and precision, but in terms of drama it was spectacular. What struck me most about Argentina's performance, was two things; firstly, the aggressive way that they chased absolutely everything, and never gave a Frenchman a moment on the ball, they harried and hassled and tackled anything that moved. Secondly, the physicality of their performance. They played like South Africa or New Zealand in the way that they hit rucks and tackles really hard, at pace, and really asserted themselves. However, there is still room for improvement. Their decision-making was poor in attacking positions, and Hernandez needs to make a better fist of running a game. Their scrum was also unusually wobbly. The biggest challenge for them now, is proving that it was not a one-off. They need to ensure that they bring that same intensity to the match against Ireland, or they could yet miss out, if results go against them. Still, this is their day, and it makes a mockery of the fact that they are not included in the Tri-Nations.

Last minute tictacs

You have a penalty about 40 metres out with 45 seconds left. You are 5 points ahead. You are allowed up to 1 minute to place the ball and kick for goal, so you know that if you get the ball dead, kicking the ball after the 80th minute has started, you have won the game. So why not kick the ball sideways over the touch line, just 20 metres away, rather than kick at the posts? Was it that they thought they could ensure that France would get 0 points by losing by more than 7 points if they kicked the penalty? I for one was shouting at the screen for them to kick the ball ot of play sideways and ensure their win....is there anything to stop them doing that?

I only watched the second half, but Argentina seemed to have amazing guts in defence, and you can only admire them - you can read the match report here. It will be interesting to see how France react.

Playing badly but still winning

I've decided to put a small (ok, tiny) amount of money on South Africa to win the World Cup based on the fact that, on their day, they could beat the All Blacks - the overwhelming favourites. But thinking back to the last World Cup, the reason that England won the tournament was that they were sufficiently well prepared that they could play badly and still win. The final was a prime example of that - they didn't play well and yet they still came through....just.

So who in this year's competition could play badly and still win? Well, ominously, the All Blacks. Their performance in the Tri-Nations was a good example of a team not at its best playing pragmatically to ensure that they won. If they play like that they will win the World Cup - never mind the usual racking up of 100 points in the pool stages and then a semi-final meltdown.

The only other team that has a chance of winning while playing badly? France I reckon. They've shown recently that they can shut down the opposition as well as play with their usual flair.

But the Kiwi's are the overwhelming favourites. Everyone has been suggesting that their Tri-Nations performance has given hope to the other countries, but for me if they play like that they will win the World Cup.

Selection surprises

Given the amount of planning the major sides (England apart) have put into this world cup, I have been surprised by some of the selections for the opening matches. Argentina have their regular full back at fly half (though admittedly he has been known to play there), France have their right wing at full back, as do England. Wales might pick their full back at centre, and have only decided on a captain in the last couple of weeks, as have France. South Africa lost their first choice number 8 and replaced him in the squad with a hooker. The Aussies expect to blood an uncapped fly-half off the bench. The latter strikes me as especially risky, given Steven Larkham's somewhat fragile nature.
Is this a sign that these sides are confused about their direction? Or just a sign that modern rugby is about squads and versatility? Frankly, if any of the coaches of these sides were considering these moves, why weren't they tried sooner? The world cup isn't the time for experimenting. The winners of the last two tournaments had settled teams where every player knew his role.

Richie McCaw

This is the sort of thing that is being circulated around New Zealand via email at the moment. One hopes that it is sarcastic, but the Kiwi love of rugby, and especially their captain, I'm not so sure....

ALL BLACKS Captain & No. 7 Richie McCaw is so tough that...

When Richie McCaw does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up; he's pushing the Earth down.

When Richie McCaw goes swimming he doesn't get wet, the water gets Richie McCawed.

When the Bogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Richie McCaw.

Richie McCaw counted to infinity - twice.

Richie McCaw invented every colour. Except pink. Tom Cruise invented pink.

Richie McCaw's hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.

Richie McCaw gave Mona Lisa that smile.

Richie McCaw can slam a revolving door.

Some kids piss their name in the snow. Richie McCaw can piss his name into concrete.

Richie McCaw's calendar goes straight from March 31st to April 2nd; No-one fools Richie McCaw.

Richie McCaw can speak Braille.

Richie McCaw's tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried. Ever!

Superman owns a pair of Richie McCaw pyjamas.

Richie McCaw owns the greatest Poker Face of all-time. It helped him win the 1993 World Series of Poker despite him holding just a Joker, a Get out of Jail Free Monopoly card, a 2 of clubs, 7 of spades and a green #4 card from the game Uno.

Richie McCaw sleeps with a night light. Not because Richie McCaw is afraid of the dark, but the dark is afraid of Richie McCaw.

Once a cobra bit Richie McCaw's leg. After five days of excruciating pain, the cobra died.

Richie McCaw divides by zero.

When Richie McCaw exercises, the machine gets stronger.

Richie McCaw doesn't use pickup lines, he simply says, "Now".

Richie McCaw sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled rugby ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalised, Richie spear-tackled the devil and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.

Richie McCaw can kill two stones with one bird.

Richie McCaw once devoured a whole wheel-barrow full of clay to prove to a friend that the expression "Shitting bricks" wasn't just a figure of speech.

The only time Richie McCaw was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake.

Wilkinson out, Dallaglio in

Wilkinson is out after turning his ankle in training and Dallaglio starts in England's first match v the USA. You can read the full details of the Wilkinson injury and the team selected here.

New Zealand "champions"

I just wanted to show everyone a photo I took in NZ earlier this year. There are lots of shops that seem to suggest that they are "Champions of the World" despite the fact they haven't been since 1987. Maybe this will be the year and they will finally not be over-claiming....

New Zealand's last win

A very interesting article in Sunday's Observer Sports monthly magazine about the build up to the All Black's first and only World Cup win back in 1987. As a 9 year-old I wan't fully aware of the furore that led up to the tournament in New Zealand, but reading about it perhaps gives some hope to England - the All Blacks were able to win in 1987 despite going into the tournament in chaos.