12/21/24
October 09, 2003
The Rugby World Cup: starts at the weekend. For the uninitiated, an Idiots guide (flash), a brief history, and some of the more undesirable aspects of the game. So, who's going to win?
If England can finish top of their group (i.e. By beating South Africa), then we'll get a reasonably easy run to the finals. If we finish second, we get to play New Zealand and Australia on the way there. It's going to be a good world cup - the Aussies are hosts, and are not a bad side with a good chance of winning it, England have beaten everyone in the world in the last year or so, and New Zealand are looking strong again.
posted by BigCalm at 04:53 AM on October 09, 2003
I can't wait! Even though England are expected to win, at least by the English media, my money is on New Zealand.
posted by salmacis at 05:23 AM on October 09, 2003
I fancy us to beat any of those three whenever we meet them. This is our time. The Southern hemisphere has dominated the game too long and we have the team to take them out.
posted by walrus at 05:30 AM on October 09, 2003
Didn't the All Blacks just hang a whole bunch of points on Australia in Australia in the run up to this? With that in mind, no matter how good England may be, it would be hard for me to bet against New Zealand (the number of beers my kiwi friend will buy me as we watch this has nothing to do with this bold prediction of course).
posted by trox at 08:34 AM on October 09, 2003
Yep, but England beat Australia in Australia too - might be that the Australians are weak rather than New Zealand particularly strong. However, England's also beaten New Zealand three months ago in June in Wellington.link
posted by BigCalm at 08:56 AM on October 09, 2003
Didn't England become the first team to have put together a winning streak containing every 6-nation and tri-nation team?
posted by Brettski at 09:14 AM on October 09, 2003
I don't think we've beaten South Africa recently - that's about it.
posted by BigCalm at 09:45 AM on October 09, 2003
We will tear them to pieces. Pressure's on them and not us. We will be the first Northern hemisphere team to win it in yonks. We beat South Africa 23-3 in Twickenham last November, but haven't played them since. We beat both Australia and New Zealand on their home territory in June.
posted by walrus at 09:53 AM on October 09, 2003
Any shot for USA to advance out of their group? Other than Scotland, seems like a weak field although you can fit my rugby knowledge into a (small) thimble.
posted by billsaysthis at 01:10 PM on October 09, 2003
billsaysthis, France will probably win that group, but scotland are pretty dreadful at the moment, and i have no idea how good fiji are (probably rubbish, but sometimes some of the pacific islands have pretty decent sides). And Japan are always shit. So if the USA can get a result against scotland, they could well take second spot. (What are the US like? Does anyone really play it there?)
posted by dng at 01:32 PM on October 09, 2003
Also, my prediction: New Zealand to be the best team in the tournament by a mile, and fuck it all up again like they have at the last two world cups. The silly fools. Hopefully this time England can take advantage, instead of those bastard Australians. I doubt it though. Despite beating Australia the last couple of the times we've played - and quite convincingly too - I really can't ever quite believe we can beat them. At anything. Ever. Not even at fucking football these days. (sob)
posted by dng at 01:37 PM on October 09, 2003
billsaysthis: No, I'm sorry but the USA have no chance to advance from their group. Mediocre as the Scots are, they will still beat the USA comfortably. France will of course win the group unless Scotland can pull off a shock. Fiji, USA and Japan are prettty evenly matched, but USA are probably the best of the three. The only country not in the 6 Nations or the Tri Nations to have any real shot of reaching the knockout stages is Argentina - and even then, they will have to beat Ireland or Australia.
posted by salmacis at 03:10 PM on October 09, 2003
I think you're underestimating just how bad Scotland have got - I wouldn't be surprised if the US does a number on them. Although Fiji could wallop Scotland as well.. that's the most interesting pool, for my money. Pool D, with Wales Canada and Tonga, could be an actual contest too.
posted by aaronscullion at 05:13 PM on October 09, 2003
USA USA USA!!!
posted by billsaysthis at 05:40 PM on October 09, 2003
It wasn't so long ago that England put 100 points on the USA. South Africa may be no great shakes these days, but Scotland ran them close twice recently. There is absolutely no chance of the USA beating Scotland. It's a shame, I would like to see more nations capable of competing at the highest level. As it is, everybody knows that only 4 countries have a realistic chance of winning the world cup. This is an issue the IRB needs to take seriously.
posted by salmacis at 05:10 AM on October 10, 2003
If the USA could get the best of the best out of the NFL and had them train for a month or two with an expert coach, America would be a definite threat to take the World Cup. Ray Lewis, Ricky Williams, Michael Vick, Donovan McNabb, Derrick Brooks, and many others have the size and speed to make this all-star team very difficult, although not impossible, to beat. However, since that will never happen, it will be a miracle if the US wins a game, much less advance out of their group, in the competition. I have no illusions of a "Miracle Down Under". One other thing: why is the RWC on PPV here in the States? And its $19.95 US a pop! If it were, say, four or five bucks a game, I might consider it, but geez!
posted by jasonbondshow at 11:35 PM on October 11, 2003
jasonbondshow: nice idea, but I wouldn't be too sure. It's taking the rugby league players who have switched a lot longer than they predicted to get into the game. FYI rugby league is a lot closer to American football than rugby union is. There's a subtlety about the union game that may not be evident from just watching a couple of matches. Look at the fluency of the England passing yesterday compared to most other teams in that competition, and you'll begin to see just how good those NFL players would have to be. England are at the top of the game now, but it's taken us more than eight years to advance from just being the best Northern hemisphere team to one which can actually threaten for the world cup. A couple of months training you say? I'd be very surprised indeed. Also, it's a brutal game: do you think the NFL players would be able to hack it without all the padding they normally hide behind?
posted by walrus at 07:21 AM on October 13, 2003
To the uninitiated, rugby looks like a bunch of blokes running into each other, but it's got very detailed and clever tactics which take years to master. Kudos to England after their crushing defeat of Georgia, but the real tests (S. Africa) are yet to come.
posted by BigCalm at 09:55 AM on October 13, 2003
Too close to call between England and New Zealand - but then 1999 was supposed to be an Australia/New Zealand derby until the French showed up and ruined it for the All Blacks. France as a wildcard is unlikely: they seem to get to the final and choke. Australia are a distant maybe, but they really don't seem to have much a clue at the moment. It would take a minor miracle for South Africa to win, and a major miracle for anyone else. Other spoiler sides could be Argentina and Ireland, although Argentina were surprisingly weak up front against the Aussies. Wales are in for another round of humiliation and degradation from their once-vaunted position in the sport. Japan look like they've improved since the last few cups, but I can't see them getting out of their pool. jasonbondshow: Sheer, unadulterated fantasy. Yanks keep harping on this theme, but it's a steaming mound. NFL players are optimised for an explosive game with plenty of rests, rugby players have to be far fitter. Furthermore, the ability of the coach to adjust the team tactics is far more limited - no calling timeouts to give the players new instructions, for example. Just a half time pep-talk and any messages that can be snuck on during injuries. NFL players would, quite literally, risk being killed in the front row of a scrum, and the 1 5/8ths position would likely be beyond any NFL player - like a good quarterback, it requires both an instinct and a lifetime of experience to make the right decisions. Similarly, lineouts and mauls aren't something picked up with a few weeks practise - forwards work long and hard to learn their craft, and it's significant most converts from league are on the wings, which requires the least specialised knowledge. An NFL player with the right background might be able to make it in the wings, possibly at centre/2nd 5/8th and perhaps some loose forward positions. It's unlikely they could do much in the tight five, halfback, 1st 5, or fullback. Kicking would most likely prove a problem, not that an All Black supporter can crow about that.
posted by rodgerd at 07:06 PM on October 13, 2003
WooHoo! England. No contest.