Guscott "Early exit for Wales or Australia"

According to Jeremy Guscott, England will get out of their group and challenge New Zealand for the WC next year, he has predicted an early exit for either Wales or Australia, Ireland should go far but South Africa and France are either stuck or in trouble, heres the link, read it and make of it what you will:-

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/29247355

LordDowlais wrote:According to Jeremy Guscott, England will get out of their group and challenge New Zealand for the WC next year, he has predicted an early exit for either Wales or Australia, Ireland should go far but South Africa and France are either stuck or in trouble, heres the link, read it and make of it what you will:-

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/29247355

Its a point of view, but I think we have to revisit it post autumn internationals and again post 6N.

For the group of death I'd say that-

The momentum was certainly with England in the 6N but for whatever reason (false expectations?) confidence was dented by the performance in NZ and we are back to asking a heap of questions. I think we are probably in a better place than we make out.

Wales is a big one. With the politics not forming such a huge road block things should hopefully improve. But the team does seem to be at a big crossroads, with the older generation on the way out and 1/2P injured. I'd half expect them to be not great in the autumn and in the 6N but be more competitive come the RWC.

Australia also seem to be working out their own issues. On the face of it Wales do look behind the other 2, but come the RWC injuries could have a big impact, with England in much better shape to absorb any than the other 2.

Think he is underestimating SA.

Guscott is hardly going to say England will bow out early. It's a very tough group - England do have the advantage of playing the crucial pool matches at HQ though.

Wales and Australia are more than capable of beating England but I don't think both will. I think England will qualify but not necessarily first.

Wales still have that mental baggage when it comes to beating the top tri nations sides which will hamper them vs the Aussies.

England at HQ won't be easy to beat IMO and let's not forget they have beaten the ABs there. They'll probably be 3rd or 4th favourites.

I agree about France as it stands. They don't seem to have a strategy at international level.

Ireland don't have a good record against SH sides - though I expect them to make the quarter finals at least.

It will be down to player management.

I didn't read the actual Guscott thing.  But I'd say England are gearing themselves up for a seismic push on the title.  If they fall early it'll be a massive shock to me.  If they stumble later on (before a final) I'll raise an eyebrow of surprise.  If they get to a final and lose...well then, I think the loss will have been a tough win for whoever beats them.

I just think they are doing far more work on the science and strategic detail than anyone else, have far more resources to throw at that detail than anyone else - and it won't be an exclusively rugby project either.  It's a World Cup and all the resources and assistance of other sporting codes in England, and sciences etc, will be thrown at the squad when and if needed or required.  It will be an total England project more than a simple and specific Rugby Union project.

I've just seen the way it's bubbling over the last few years and think they'll be on fire and pretty much irresistable in their desire to get to the final.

Ok, BUT.........................
But the best laid plans can of course come to nothing, and nothing is what they might come to; but if they go out in the pools I'll be shocked.  If they go out in the pools, the internal rugby war in England and fallout from that war will be 100 times bigger than any dwarf adventures down south.

I agree with what Guscott has to say about Wales. There's a serious lack of creativity about us and if bish bash bosh doesn't work, all we seem to do is try bish bash bosh again in the hope that it works eventually. For Fly's sake, I'll quote the bit about Wales:

'You look at the calibre of player Wales have in their team and you think they're good enough to beat the best. But I doubt whether Wales have that necessary creative spark to win the World Cup.
Like Wales, South Africa are a route-one side but they are much more physical.
If you make your front-line tackles against Wales, they don't seem to have anything else up their sleeves other than sending Jamie Roberts, George North, Alex Cuthbert and the rest of their big guys into the wall.'

Gatland does have creative players available to him, but is he prepared to use them and has he left himself enough time?

LP,

That's why I hope the likes of Walker, J Williams and Cory Allen really have great seasons this year as they give us a different option to the bish bosh, that is of course if Gatland wants to use them.

Well to be fair Guscott is saying the Springboks are stuck, not much more than that.

He is correct, they are currently stuck, but there are a number of reasons for this.

Their first choice front row is tired, they were played into the ground by Jake WHite in the Super Rugby tournament, the Sharks lead the comp all the way to around the 13th week and then just fell flat, this carried through to their players in the Bok squad.

The Boks had some long term injuries this season.

Jean de Villiers and Eben Etzebeth had very little SUper Rugby and seems to be struggling for form.

Pieter Steph du Toit is still injured.

Willem ALberts is injured
FOurie du Preez is injured
Jaque FOurie is unavailable
JP PIetersen has been unavailable
Frans Steyn threw his toys and is unavailable
MOrne Steyn sucks.

SO there has been a transition especially in the back line with new combinations that isn't gelling yet.

Add to that the game plan is not working.

A year is a long time though.

I read this and well to be honest I don't take alot of interest in what he says. Top player poor pundit.

I think England are a good side I'm just concerned people think they're a great side.
Having said that a few player changes (1or2) like FH's with creativity and sort the 12 spot out and they could go quite a long way.

Quarter finals or semis I think

As things stand I have England down as a finalist. and I am no fan ;-) Its a broad strong squad with a lot of quality players. They have a good team ethos, a settled coaching group and they ar at home. They won't suffer a crisis of confidence and they will be well prepared. maybe a questionmark over tactics

I'd be surprised if the ABs make the final. I don't think anyone will want to see NZ win back to back RWCs so there'll be big head winds from all angles. If any AB team can do it, it'll be this one, but I'm doubtful.

Some of it is plain wrong. NZ were awesome in one game of the RC. They hung on by the skin of their teeth last week and drew the first.

England are building but 6N titles are what would really make people take notice. They are potentially a great side but you get the feeling they aren't quite there yet-much like their quest for silverware. Their match against Wales is huge. Australia are like France in that they are major WC threats and can beat anyone. If Wales can get one up on them (England aren't a SH team so that hoodoo won't be there) this time. Losing by one point won't be promising any more if it comes in that game.

Really interested in Ireland as they've got enough class to not touch cloth now that BOD's gone. They have an avalanche of ball runners and can come at you in waves. It's up to the backline to take advantage but Schmidt's got them on the right track.

SA is the biggest threat. Their set piece is strong. Was big for NZ to hold them out last week. They've lost only four games at a WC so they're bred for it. Strange as their cricketers aren't.

Argentina could surprise and make a semi here-France or Ireland and they don't fear either.

Aussie aren't there yet either but they'll have more strings to their bow that's for sure.

And obviously NZ are the fittest side around and yes they have a gear noone can touch. But what happens if you chuck a spanner in the gearbox. You do need a bit of consistency to win a World Cup but you don't to knock the All Blacks out of it.

Graham Henry has come out and stated England are NZ's biggest threat. One of the reasons is their penalty at home is 50% of that when playing away.

"England playing at home give away [an average of] eight penalties a game," Henry said.

"Playing away they concede 16. There will be some rugby reasons for that ... but most refs tend to favour the home side. I don't believe it's intentional, it's more a subconscious thing. You've at least 70,000 English people pressuring you to make decisions that favour their side."

NZ have clearly moved to a much wider and faster game with the improving game of Aaron Smith. Since the England third test they've focussed on getting the ball as wide as possible, as fast as possible. At Sydney that went out the window and at Westpac the slower pitch meant the Boks were able to contain them easier.

Eden Park was the fastest track they've played on since the England 3rd test and the ability to go wide at pace showed again.

I expect Ellis to be multi- tries as well unless it rains there.

In England next year they wont have the fast tracks you find in Oz and SA and this will bring them back to the pack so they'll have to adjust their gameplan, mix it up with kicking for gain etc more.

But the slow tracks could be their undoing next year, our NH results lately never really high scoring as they used to be as opposition defences get better.

We like to place order on things. The unknown is unsettling. We like to draw parallels from situations in which we weren't directly involved.

So it comes as no surprise that Guscott uses Eden Park as a way to extract meaning from this RC where England are not involved. England lost at Eden Park by just 5 points, which strangely turned out to be a closer game than the one point loss in Dunedin. He then compares that to Australia's test at Eden Park but conveniently leaves out the 3rd England test against NZ and the Wallabies' draw with Australia at Sydney.

Each match has its own context. Just because A vs C happened and then B vs C happened does not mean A vs B is determined by the result against C because they were against the same opponents. That's like saying because Ireland beat France and England lost against France means that the Irish loss against England is cancelled out.

As in all the World Cups, we can make predictions as to how the teams will line up in the quarter finals but invariably a spanner will be thrown in those predictions. Certain teams will be underdone and other teams will have had their resources stretched. Those with squads able to absorb the inevitable casualties will be more ideally placed but that is still no guarantee of success.

The key to me is who lines up against the two top ranked teams NZ and SA on opposite sides of the draw. If form goes to plan, those two teams are scheduled to meet in the semi final. However, either France or Ireland are about as assured as you can be to line up against NZ and they are both capable of ambushing a NZ side that is assuredly going to be underprepared. SA in turn are likely to face a side familiar with playing in England or Australia who are adept at upsetting any team if allowed to.

So I see a cluster of France, Ireland and NZ on a potential collision course and two of Australia, Wales and England on a collision course with SA. In theory, NZ and SA face each other in a semi but who among us would put their house on that eventuating?

Order is all very well but chaos adds that element of surprise and that is why these tournaments are special. Every RWC champion has been deserving but every winner has had their moment of fortune along the way.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

The key to me is who lines up against the two top ranked teams NZ and SA on opposite sides of the draw. If form goes to plan, those two teams are scheduled to meet in the semi final. However, either France or Ireland are about as assured as you can be to line up against NZ and they are both capable of ambushing a NZ side that is assuredly going to be underprepared. SA in turn are likely to face a side familiar with playing in England or Australia who are adept at upsetting any team if allowed to.

.

I take it you do not give Wales a chance of getting out of thier gruop either them.

I'll reserve judgement until after next years 6N.

The RWC is setup to cause upsets, the draws itself aren't correct.

Ideally any knock out competition should provide semifinals of 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3

It never does.

And then of course there are the upsets, the referees, Karma and the rest.

LD familiarity isn't even a guarantor of success. Australia played Ireland at last year's RWC and look at what that familiarity did for them. There were lots of closet Irish fans that day who had nothing to do with Ireland or Australia no doubt.

There's a real thirst for upsets in this tournament. That's what I see happening in the pool of death. We could easily have the situation where Oz, Wales and England all lose one game and it'll come down to how they bounce back from those upsets. The advantage they have at least is in the pools you get another life. In the knockout stages you don't, nor do you get a lot of sympathy.

blackcanelion wrote:Graham Henry has come out and stated England are NZ's biggest threat.  One of the reasons is their penalty at home is 50% of that when playing away.

"England playing at home give away [an average of] eight penalties a game," Henry said.

"Playing away they concede 16. There will be some rugby reasons for that ... but most refs tend to favour the home side. I don't believe it's intentional, it's more a subconscious thing. You've at least 70,000 English people pressuring you to make decisions that favour their side."

Worthy of Sir Alex Ferguson or Murhino that one!!

Irish Londoner wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Graham Henry has come out and stated England are NZ's biggest threat.  One of the reasons is their penalty at home is 50% of that when playing away.

"England playing at home give away [an average of] eight penalties a game," Henry said.

"Playing away they concede 16. There will be some rugby reasons for that ... but most refs tend to favour the home side. I don't believe it's intentional, it's more a subconscious thing. You've at least 70,000 English people pressuring you to make decisions that favour their side."

Worthy of Sir Alex Ferguson or Murhino that one!!

I actually agree with Graham Henry, I just hope that the Springboks get a run of favourable decisions for a change.

So GH is saying that the only place we can guarantee that the opposition cant get to the referees is at twickenham?

There's no way you can call this England side great at the moment, but they certainly look competitive in most games and have shown the ability to put away lesser opposition.
Wales look to have lost their mojo at the moment. They had a delightfully simple but well-executed game plan, but something is not working at the moment - part of this may be the opposition anticipating what they're going to do, but I also think that some key players, in particular in the pivotal positions at at 9 and 10, look some way off their best.
I'm surprised SA haven't kicked on from last year. Several teams came close to the ABs in the AI by taking them on up front, and I thought that a physical and creative side like SA would be able to take that as a starting point. Thus far it's not come true.
France look terrible, but they did in 2011.
Ireland are in nice shape, but there is a question over whether they can hit the heights week-after-week to beat the very best on a consistent basis.

Could be spun the other way and say the only time England are getting the correct decisions is at home. To be fair home or away all sides get some decisions going for or against you. I don't believe it's down to ref bias intentional or not. Bar the ref with the beautiful hair; he's an arse.

I think England are very unlikely to lose both to Wales and Australia with home court advantage and they are probably favourites to win both games individually speaking.

Can't see Ireland beating the boks but actually I'd back Ireland to beat France so their 1/4 with Argentina is a far easier task. I reckon England will beat them in the SF at home but that side of the pool is very open and you could easily see ENG, IRE or AUS, FRA get to the final (if those teams topped their group rather than favourites ENG & IRE currently).

SA I don't think can beat NZ. They are 0-5 since the RWC and it will probably be 0-6 by the end of the season and at best 1-7 come the RWC SF. Its too much.

A lot of rugby until then mind.

fa0019 wrote:I think England are very unlikely to lose both to Wales and Australia with home court advantage and they are probably favourites to win both games individually speaking.

Can't see Ireland beating the boks but actually I'd back Ireland to beat France so their 1/4 with Argentina is a far easier task. I reckon England will beat them in the SF at home but that side of the pool is very open and you could easily see ENG, IRE or AUS, FRA get to the final (if those teams topped their group rather than favourites ENG & IRE currently).

SA I don't think can beat NZ. They are 0-5 since the RWC and it will probably be 0-6 by the end of the season and at best 1-7 come the RWC SF. Its too much.

A lot of rugby until then mind.

We can only meet you in the semis if we finish 2nd in our group and beat NZ (or whoever tops their group,just putting that in here to cover all bases) in the quarter final,if we top the group we can only meet the Boks in the final.

There may be some other way we can meet if S.A. finish 2nd in their group but I can't be bothered looking it up as it's fairly unlikely.

Just what is this predicated on June or AI results?we are roughly a year out from the RWC.
England are progressing well but haven't beaten SH sides consistently or won a 6Ns recently
have they?

All three tier1 SH sides have sustained heavy injury problems BUT all 3 are on more or less
unbeaten runs of 10 or more.Next year you would expect there squads all to be much better
prepared.

All 3 will be strengthened by players currently unavailable in the case of NZ for example
Hosae Gear,SBW,Richard Kahui,Woodcock,Nonu,Romano,Andy Ellis[apparently still in mind]
Aus O'Connor,Pocock,Cooper,Genia.SA Alberts ,Flip van der Merwe,etc.

That of course applies to all sides home advantage will certainly be worth at least 6points
BUT.AS I understand it England will play maybe QF away from Twickenham if they proceed
ALL 3 tier 1 sides will have to play there top side versus each other and a second side v
Fiji may mean a loss or just a narrow victory points difference or try count could be crucial;

England MUST win there Group otherwise must beat Boks QF and NZ SF on way to final
assuming they win there groups of course.

The following things you can guarantee 1 there will be a joker in the deck that spoils things.
There will be at least one match which the REF will be blamed for a loss.The team with the
most consistent goalkicking game will win most of there matches.

Finally I don`t no whether the AB`s are a great side or not BUT despite seldom having
there first choice side available.They have found players to plug the gaps and win ugly
or otherwise but continue to win that`s a good sign.

Since the 12/14 game seasons have been common in both hemispheres they average
2 losses a season.Going into the AI`s they well could be on that this year SA and 3rd
Bledisloe.

I always expect the Home side to win in the RC BUT the AB`s alone have regularly
bucked those odds.I neither know nor care who wins the RWC BUT it would be nice
for NZ to win to get the chokers jibe well and truly fixed.

I doubt that I will be around to see 2019 so just enjoy the tiddlers causing upsets.

Whats interesting in these tournaments is how pressure (psychological) effects teams and players. Pressure plays a massive part in the teams performance.

I thought of pressure when I thought of the group of death. England and Australia are both EXPECTING to get out of that. Wales are capable of beating them both and Wales will go into it without the weight of expectation on their backs. So Wales are in a good position.

Looking elsewhere France and Ireland should be very close. I think Ireland will be stronger this season with plenty of reinforcements to add to last seasons squad. The new center pairing will be key. The winners play Argentina who have the advantage of not being expected to win that match.

LordDowlais wrote:According to Jeremy Guscott, England will get out of their group and challenge New Zealand for the WC next year, he has predicted an early exit for either Wales or Australia.....

He could hardly predict success for England without predicting Wales or Australia having an early exit. That is what the group of death means.

Jeremy Guscott is predicting an England win at the RWC with early exit for Wales or Australia.

"England may have lost this summer's series in New Zealand 3-0, but the first two Tests - which they lost by five points and one point - were promising.
Given that Australia recently lost 51-20 at Eden Park,  where England were only beaten 20-15 in June, I'm very optimistic about England's chances on home soil." - as if this has anything to do with it  

"England will progress from Pool A, the so-called 'group of death', so it's a toss-up between Wales and Australia as to who will perish."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/29247355

Obviously this is no more than flag flying, as at this stage no one can reasonably predict the outcome.

I agree that, Wales or Australia face an early exit, but so do England, as there is no where to hide in this group, and all points will count.

Personally I would love to see both England and Wales getting through and both progressing to the final. What a final that would be... England v Wales for the RWC . The only thing of course, if that should happen the final should be relocated to a more suitable ground, like....errrr... the Millennium Stadium..

But seriously, joking and banter aside.. Does anyone think Guscott has a point, or is this just sound bites for sound bites sake a year off the tournament.

Already discussed..

https://www.606v2.com/t55635-does-anybody-else-agree-with-this

Sorry missed that...

Might be a bit pessimistic but I cant see Wales beating Australia, they struggled to beat them every time since 2008 and Australia have had worse squads than the one they're building for the World Cup

Hardly "struggled" to beat them every time since 2008. Since 2008 the average score difference over that period is 6 points, so I'd hardly say that classifies as struggled...

Date Tourn Rnd Match Score Tries Pnts Venue Adv
Sat, 30 Nov 2013 AI WAL v AUS 26-30 02:03 01-Apr Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H
Sat, 01 Dec 2012 AI WAL v AUS 12-14 00:01 01-Apr Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H
Sat, 23 Jun 2012 ST 3 WAL v AUS 19-20 01:01 01-Apr Football Stadium, Sydney A
Sat, 16 Jun 2012 ST 2 WAL v AUS 23-25 02:01 01-Apr Colonial Stadium, Melbourne A
Sat, 09 Jun 2012 ST 1 WAL v AUS 19-27 01:03 0-4 Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane A
Sat, 03 Dec 2011 AI WAL v AUS 18-24 02:03 01-Apr Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H
Fri, 21 Oct 2011 WC 3&4 WAL v AUS 18-21 02:02 01-Apr Eden Park, Auckland N
Sat, 06 Nov 2010 AI WAL v AUS 16-25 01:03 0-4 Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H
Sat, 28 Nov 2009 AI WAL v AUS 12-30 00:04 0-5 Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H
Sat, 29 Nov 2008 AI WAL v AUS 21-18 02:02 04-Jan Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H


...and that average is skewed by the big win the Wallabies had in 2009.

I have to agree, it isn't going to be easy, but we have a squad capable of beating the Wallabies, we just have to get over the finishing line, and hopefully we'll do that in the AI giving the confidence we need to progress.

In comparison, over the same time period the average score difference between England and Australia has been 9 points. Mind you England have won 3 of those encounters (total of 7 games)...

So I guess, the only thing you can take from this is that any of these teams can beat the other, which in turn makes this a very interesting, yet very dangerous group.

I don't agree with Guscott's reasoning, looking at different matches between different sides under different conditions etc. and comparing scores is not an accurate basis for making a prediction.

Looking at the players available and the respective squads I would predict England to top that group, with Wales and Australia battling for the second spot. Hard to call at that point, and much for me would depend on how the ref on the day interprets the scrummage and which side is worse hit by inevitable injuries. You'd expect Wales to win the set piece contest, but the Aussies never seem to be easily beaten by NH sides and have been a bogey side for Wales so it's a rough one to predict. Two closely matched sides.

I'm going to tip the Aussies to win narrowly over Wales to eliminate Wales and end Gatland's tenure as head coach. Dai Young to take over.

No9 wrote:Hardly "struggled" to beat them every time since 2008. Since 2008 the average score difference over that period is 6 points, so I'd hardly say that classifies as struggled...

Date Tourn Rnd Match Score Tries Pnts Venue Adv
Sat, 30 Nov 2013 AI WAL v AUS 26-30 02:03 01-Apr Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H
Sat, 01 Dec 2012 AI WAL v AUS 12-14 00:01 01-Apr Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H
Sat, 23 Jun 2012 ST 3 WAL v AUS 19-20 01:01 01-Apr Football Stadium, Sydney A
Sat, 16 Jun 2012 ST 2 WAL v AUS 23-25 02:01 01-Apr Colonial Stadium, Melbourne A
Sat, 09 Jun 2012 ST 1 WAL v AUS 19-27 01:03 0-4 Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane A
Sat, 03 Dec 2011 AI WAL v AUS 18-24 02:03 01-Apr Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H
Fri, 21 Oct 2011 WC 3&4 WAL v AUS 18-21 02:02 01-Apr Eden Park, Auckland N
Sat, 06 Nov 2010 AI WAL v AUS 16-25 01:03 0-4 Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H
Sat, 28 Nov 2009 AI WAL v AUS 12-30 00:04 0-5 Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H
Sat, 29 Nov 2008 AI WAL v AUS 21-18 02:02 04-Jan Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H


...and that average is skewed by the big win the Wallabies had in 2009.

I have to agree, it isn't going to be easy, but we have a squad capable of beating the Wallabies, we just have to get over the finishing line, and hopefully we'll do that in the AI giving the confidence we need to progress.

In comparison, over the same time period the average score difference between England and Australia has been 9 points. Mind you England have won 3 of those encounters (total of 7 games)...

So I guess, the only thing you can take from this is that any of these teams can beat the other, which in turn makes this a very interesting, yet very dangerous group.

You say they have a team capable of beating Australia -it's one thing saying that but it's still 10 losses for Wales in a row vs Australia even though they have been close.

Wales cannot beat Australia - that's what we do know.

The way it stands:

Wales can beat England, Wales cannot beat Australia.
England can beat Australia and they can beat Wales - they also have home advantage.
Australia have a dominant record in recent years vs Wales and they can beat England.

Both England and Australia are higher ranked than Wales and better RWC sides - both have never failed to reach the quarter finals.

This means that Wales face an upward battle to reach the quarter finals.

Guscott normally 'bigs up' Wales in his columns (certainly in The Rugby Paper) so I certainly don't think he's got a downer on them (though he might be edging towards England for World Cup time).

I think it's fair to say that with home advantage England are probably favourites in both games and the rankings show that (with +3 home advantage to England over Aus). Obviously things can change and the games will be very tough.

Re. the point that Wales 'struggled' to beat Aus since 2008. I think it's more than fair to say that if you don't beat them in that period you 'struggled' to beat them'. In fact I think that's slightly diplomatic. That's different from saying they were never in with a chance.

As someone said on another thread it's hardly that controversial. If England go through, one of the other two don't (and obviously England also miss out if the other two go through).

As an England fan currently confident we can beat both at home (especially in a World Cup).

Beshocked Wales cannot beat Australia is an absurd statement. NZ haven't lost the Bledisloe Cup to Australia in an age but you cannot draw from that the conclusion that Australia will never win the Bledisloe Cup. NZ had never beaten Australia in a RWC match prior to 2011 but did NZ approach that game thinking this one's beyond us fullas.

Guscott's ground comparisons at Eden Park are equally absurd. He might just as well have said England conceded fewer penalties at the same ground against NZ so will have fewer shots at goal.

Previous results are some sort of guide but nobody knows which side will turn up and execute better on the day. In a way these pool matches will be like early knockout games and that places teams under additional pressures. You never quite know how teams will react to that. In 2011, England's team looked stronger on paper than 2007 and historically England had been very consistent at RWC level but that didn't seem to count for much against France. Don't I know that feeling!

Anyone making predictions a year ahead of the RWC has nothing better to do.

I predict that statement will hold true a year from now BB.

Irish Londoner wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Graham Henry has come out and stated England are NZ's biggest threat.  One of the reasons is their penalty at home is 50% of that when playing away.

"England playing at home give away [an average of] eight penalties a game," Henry said.

"Playing away they concede 16. There will be some rugby reasons for that ... but most refs tend to favour the home side. I don't believe it's intentional, it's more a subconscious thing. You've at least 70,000 English people pressuring you to make decisions that favour their side."

Worthy of Sir Alex Ferguson or Murhino that one!!

Lots of research on this - the home team gets less penalties against them. Its true

Biltong wrote:Anyone making predictions a year ahead of the RWC has nothing better to do.

biltong, as you've given up on supporting SA who will you be cheering on for the World Cup?

TJ wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Graham Henry has come out and stated England are NZ's biggest threat.  One of the reasons is their penalty at home is 50% of that when playing away.

"England playing at home give away [an average of] eight penalties a game," Henry said.

"Playing away they concede 16. There will be some rugby reasons for that ... but most refs tend to favour the home side. I don't believe it's intentional, it's more a subconscious thing. You've at least 70,000 English people pressuring you to make decisions that favour their side."

Worthy of Sir Alex Ferguson or Murhino that one!!

Lots of research on this - the home team gets less penalties against them.  Its true

It's not simply down to the refs favouring the home side though. Sides generally play better at home in front of their own fans, in familiar surroundings and without the travel. That's all part of home advantage. A side playing better usually concede fewer penalties by having more (and better) possession and by having the opposition on the back foot more often.

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:Anyone making predictions a year ahead of the RWC has nothing better to do.

biltong, as you've given up on supporting SA who will you be cheering on for the World Cup?

I haven't given up mate, I am on a sabbatical

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I predict that statement will hold true a year from now BB.

Assumptions kia, assumptions, whilst I agree that Wales will find it tough, I have seen too many surprises in my life to believe that to be fact

Cyril wrote:

TJ wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Graham Henry has come out and stated England are NZ's biggest threat.  One of the reasons is their penalty at home is 50% of that when playing away.

"England playing at home give away [an average of] eight penalties a game," Henry said.

"Playing away they concede 16. There will be some rugby reasons for that ... but most refs tend to favour the home side. I don't believe it's intentional, it's more a subconscious thing. You've at least 70,000 English people pressuring you to make decisions that favour their side."

Worthy of Sir Alex Ferguson or Murhino that one!!

Lots of research on this - the home team gets less penalties against them.  Its true

It's not simply down to the refs favouring the home side though. Sides generally play better at home in front of their own fans, in familiar surroundings and without the travel. That's all part of home advantage. A side playing better usually concede fewer penalties by having more (and better) possession and by having the opposition on the back foot more often.

Sorry, but that is pure conjecture to suggest you transgress less because you play at home.

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:

TJ wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:Graham Henry has come out and stated England are NZ's biggest threat.  One of the reasons is their penalty at home is 50% of that when playing away.

"England playing at home give away [an average of] eight penalties a game," Henry said.

"Playing away they concede 16. There will be some rugby reasons for that ... but most refs tend to favour the home side. I don't believe it's intentional, it's more a subconscious thing. You've at least 70,000 English people pressuring you to make decisions that favour their side."

Worthy of Sir Alex Ferguson or Murhino that one!!

Lots of research on this - the home team gets less penalties against them.  Its true

It's not simply down to the refs favouring the home side though. Sides generally play better at home in front of their own fans, in familiar surroundings and without the travel. That's all part of home advantage. A side playing better usually concede fewer penalties by having more (and better) possession and by having the opposition on the back foot more often.

Sorry, but that is pure conjecture to suggest you transgress less because you play at home.

So, "home advantage" is purely down to the ref favouring the home side then?

Well, it's a bit like everything I read from Jerry Guscott. Bland, inoffensive and completely spot on

World cup betting on paddypower

Winner
8/5 New Zealand
3/1 England
4/1 South Africa
8/1 Australia
14/1 Ireland
18/1 France
18/1 Wales
66/1 Argentina
100/1 Samoa
200/1 Scotland
300/1 Italy
The rest are 425/1 or greater


Pool A
11/10 England
7/4 Australia
11/4 Wales


Pool B
1/20 South Africa
10/1 Samoa
18/1 Scotland


Pool C
1/50 New Zeland
12/1 Argentina
66/1 Tonga


Pool D
8/11 Ireland
Evs France
40/1 Italy

No9 wrote:Hardly "struggled" to beat them every time since 2008. Since 2008 the average score difference over that period is 6 points, so I'd hardly say that classifies as struggled...

Date Tourn Rnd Match Score Tries Pnts Venue Adv
Sat, 30 Nov 2013 AI WAL v AUS 26-30 02:03 01-Apr Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H
Sat, 01 Dec 2012 AI WAL v AUS 12-14 00:01 01-Apr Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H
Sat, 23 Jun 2012 ST 3 WAL v AUS 19-20 01:01 01-Apr Football Stadium, Sydney A
Sat, 16 Jun 2012 ST 2 WAL v AUS 23-25 02:01 01-Apr Colonial Stadium, Melbourne A
Sat, 09 Jun 2012 ST 1 WAL v AUS 19-27 01:03 0-4 Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane A
Sat, 03 Dec 2011 AI WAL v AUS 18-24 02:03 01-Apr Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H
Fri, 21 Oct 2011 WC 3&4 WAL v AUS 18-21 02:02 01-Apr Eden Park, Auckland N
Sat, 06 Nov 2010 AI WAL v AUS 16-25 01:03 0-4 Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H
Sat, 28 Nov 2009 AI WAL v AUS 12-30 00:04 0-5 Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H
Sat, 29 Nov 2008 AI WAL v AUS 21-18 02:02 04-Jan Millennium Stadium, Cardiff H


...and that average is skewed by the big win the Wallabies had in 2009.

I have to agree, it isn't going to be easy, but we have a squad capable of beating the Wallabies, we just have to get over the finishing line, and hopefully we'll do that in the AI giving the confidence we need to progress.

In comparison, over the same time period the average score difference between England and Australia has been 9 points. Mind you England have won 3 of those encounters (total of 7 games)...

So I guess, the only thing you can take from this is that any of these teams can beat the other, which in turn makes this a very interesting, yet very dangerous group.

I say we struggle to beat Australia because we haven't beaten them, they've been close games and arguably we SHOULD have won some of them, but the fact remains we always ended up on the wrong side of the score board. Its the same with the Springboks, we've had close games with them but we cant quite win.

I never use to buy into the "Wales are not mentally strong enough" trope, but there HAS to be some kind of psychological blocker if they come so close but always lose at the death due to lack of concentration or terrible decision making