RWC2011 Post Mortem by a Cynic

Well it is all over for another 4 years,the good,the bad,and the ugly.
New Zealand by all reports did a good job of organising it anyway.
As usual there were Refereeing problems at times as in previous ones.
The Home side again seeming to get the best of the,50/50 calls.
Tier2 sides got a rough deal with turnaround times,but this has been sorted
for 2015.Unlike 2007 there was no real surprise team Samoa,Tonga,Canada,
Argentina all did well,.Teams like Russia and Georgia showed real Promise.
Japan and most of the minnows competed in the first round then fell away
as fatigue,or trying to qualify for 2015 automatically crept in.
The 6 Ns sides England did`nt really fire,playing Wilkinson at 10 in the big
matches was a mistake.Playing two 10`s in Q/F confused the teams gameplan.
Scotlands inability to score tries cost them qualification to knockout stages.
Ireland pulled of the surprise of the Tournament beating an injury weakened
Australia.THIS threw the whole RWC blueprint out the window the perceived
SA or NZ v Australia final went out the Window,the SH knocking each other off.
Italy did`nt really figure except against minnows,Ireland then went out too Wales
in the Semi-Finals.
Wales started with a roar,running SA very close although it seemed SA had a bit
in reserve.France were a total enigma losing two Pool matches Tonga being the
big surprise.The cynic in me says France were only interested in qualifying in
the now NH easier side of the draw.Before nearly winning the RWC
Wales in some ways were the form NH side after losing to the Boks,beating Samoa
then Ireland.Before succumbing to France with 14 men,IF they reached the Final
would they have won.NO!!! there inability to kick there Goals cost them
{Probably}wins versus both the Boks and France.
Argentina were very limited in there gameplan but very awkward to break down then beat.
Australia after losing to Ireland the whole RWC changed,they got past the Boks with a massive
defensive effort.Then succumbed to the BEST All Black performance in a decade before
winning the third place game.
South Africa looked good after the narrow win over Wales,BUT when the lost key players
to injury.They used a different gameplan they did`nt seem comfortable with and lost
narrowly to Australia`s massive defensive effort .Had they met the All Blacks in the SF`s
would they have won?NO not on the All Blacks performance that day.
The All Blacks had a rude awakening in there first Pool Match with Tonga,BUT with hindsight
it was actually probably the best round one result overall.The had to be patient to grind down
Argentina in the Quarters.
The Semi-Final versus Australia was there FINAL and there best performance in 10 years.
The Final versus a fired up France was built on a clinically executed try,a single goal kick
then solid obdurate defence.Refs gave them the better of the decisions maybe home teams
tend to get the benefit of the doubt in 50.50 situations.Did they deserve to win the Final
possibly not.BUT they had 5 chances to score took two of them,France had 4 chances took
one.End of story.Overall they were THE only undefeated side inthe RWC therefore the Winners.
The RWC was effected to a large extent to injuries most teams suffered at one stage or other
when you miss players like.Skrela,Bakkies Botha,Franny Steyn,Dan Carter,Colin Slade,Aaron Crudon
Kurtley Beale,Quade Cooper,et al.not to mention those who failed to make it.
THIS like all RWCs proves there are no pre conceived ideas of whowill win it,because injuries and
luck with the officials decisions ,Decide it every time.
NZ IRB number one side still,RWC Holders after 24 years again,still they can`t win.Not chokers,
just only choke away,can`t win any where but at home.

Yep...agree with every word Alan. Very good.
The next in England is going to be so interesting as it will mean new players from most of the top sides. NZ will lose Thorn, McCaw, A Williams, probably Carter wont be no.1, Mealamu, probably Nonu Smith and Weepu and maybe a couple more.

SA and Ireland will have almost a complete overhaul and Wales and Oz will be amongst the most experienced based on their present young squads.

England will shed the Lewsey, JW types of former glory so unlike 07-11 where most of the great players played through both, many the stars of tomorrow are yet to be known.

For me SA remain as the most dangerous prospect now with a point to prove having exited earlier than expected.

Emack- A very lucid and fair minded assessment, and can't argue with much of what you've said.

The 2 NH giants of France and England are to say the least an Enigma and seem to be going backwards rather than forwards, while Wales, Ireland et al may have good periods in competitions, but will never worry the Big boys for an extended period, and this is not a WUM but my heartfelt assessment.

The SH are still (obviously) better overall and deserve their ratio of 6-1 wins overall, but seem to me to have a stranglehold on the IRB and reffing, with officialdom seeming, and that is the word, seeming to pander to them in every aspect of the game. As people have said on this thread the NH in the shape of France and England have the financial clout to shape the game in their way, so if you have power, use it and impose your world view of Rugby, because how many games ruined by officials will we take, until we start to think whats the point, and leave in droves. All in all well done!!

Yes agree. Especially when paddy obrien comes out as he did in 2007 confirming yet again the high standard of reffing throughout. I mean he does it cos he can but hes really avoiding the inevitable. Perhaps he just wants to see his time out quietly.

Not a terribly cynical assessment at all mate. Rather disappointing, I think, considering your title for the article. In fact, as Taylor wrote, a pretty darn good assessment overall.

The point I see for the next year or so is Rugby will have a strong focus on the referees. Forget good or bad for the moment, but to drive consistency first. I haven't heard the IRB come out on this point yet, but this resonates through almost every assessment of this RWC and the sport in general.

Just a couple of points,the idea the IRB favours the SH in general,and NZ in particular is fallacious.The IRB is dominated by the NH block vote,the have more than the SH has.
Hence when the Experimental rules were trialled,the SH was lumbered with them en masse for 2 seasons or there abouts.The NH trialled a few for one season,then voted nearly every one out of court.
With the IRB what the NH wants it gets mostly officials are Human and make mistakes.BUT they are not corrupt,it is true that the home side usually gets the benefit of the doubt in 50/50 situations .
That was true of EVERY RWC not just this one,France had there turn 2007 ,NZ 2011.It does`nt make it right or wrong it happens,and because
the RWC for many is the only one that counts unfortunate.
Many here are dis gruntled because there team got beaten,according to them by the Ref.SA v Aus, France v Wales,France v NZ especially.
Many of these were influenced not by there own eyes but the ITV commentary.Dallagio was so biased towards France it was untrue,example
NZ penalty at a Scrum."He [the Ref]got it wrong wish I could see it again"ITV then does the replay to oblige,Day glo "Oh no he got that just about right".
Talk about two faced,I try to be objective with my views on any match,and Scrum Penalties especially.
I am very Sceptical of being well versed in the ways of the Front Row Mafia,and that the French front row were whily vets in this area.
Most Refs can`t pick them and chances are you will be pinged for something you have`nt done as those you have.

Alan,
Hard to disagree with most of you points. Which is why I like reading them. It helps me validate feeling good about always being right (sic). But a quick point about the IRB and favouritism. Political power does not always equal voting power. Its more about controlling votes than the number of votes one actually is granted. For instance the ABs use their unique drawing power with fans as a part of financial and other negotiations. Thats not a criticism. Just the opposite as they would be mistaken if they did not.

To me, the ELV fiasco showed more about fault lines within the member nations than the IRB itself. After all the IRB endorsed the experiments and it was the NH nations who rebelled and then took their own path, which was tacitly sanctioned by the IRB after the fact.

With regards to the IRB and SH v NH teams. Wasnt it the IRB in relation to Australia or because Aiustalia thought that they was hard done by in 2003 when England won the RWC, isnt that when the IRB brought in the Elv's.

I seem to recall that the SH teams wanted to change the rule about kicking straight in to touch from the 22 when the ball had been passed back .

Their was also the talk about the ball being release stright away once a tackle had been made.I seem to believe that all these changes came about to help SH teams to gain an advantage over NH teams.


After this RWC and when the next one comes around in 2015 i would like to see the TMO beable to have more involvement with the Referee, at the request of the referree in deciding (if their was an off side forward pass foot in touch)which the referree and the touch judge did not see.
(The TMO) should beable to comunicate with the referre at all times.

How do you s=feel about that emack2

emack
weren't the experimental rules suggested by and carried out for the SH nations in the first place? I thought I read somewhere that the Aussies in particular wanted a 'more open' game that produced more tries and could therefore compete with rugby league as a spectacle.
Is this true?

I also feel that the Sh nations want to be reffed by SH refs, especially in games against NH teams. Was there ever a chance that an NH ref would get the WC final? And if not, why not?
SH refs aren't bent it's just that they ref in a slightly different way to their NH counterparts. Obviously they favour SH teams because SH teams play a slightly different style of rugby, a style SH refs see regularly and understand.
The fact that SH countries like to play in a style that suits them is understandable. However the fact that the IRB allow them to play in a slightly different way (at the breakdown for example) is not.
That's one example of the strength of the SH countries within the IRB
Another is the fact that the WC actually went to NZ in the first place. What was the point of that? Did the IRB think that rugby gospel needed help to spread into NZ to an even greater extent? What about the developing countries? What a missed opportunity.

I will be posting a more extensive "critique" about the RWC on this thread later.BUT will cover a few points now,NZ were awarded the RWC probably because it was there turn again.That it occurred during an World wide economic depression is not there fault.
It has been run from what I have read in an exemplary way,several thousand volunteers helping out.Stadia though smaller than some in NH being nearly filled.Most important ALL the playing surfaces have been excellent.The atomosphere great,I have heard of no serious complaint of it`s being run.
As to the ELVs they were trialled by a IRB working party,and REJECTED nearly en masse by the NH.Who trialled only a few briefly then ensured VERY few made it to law.THAT is the power of the NH block vote ,what NH wants it gets.
Referees ideally should be ideally SH for NH games and vice versa. BUT how does that work in a RWC where Sh v NH is common at every stage.
The IRB universally appointed the Refs,and laid down certain guidelines cracking down in certain areas.Sanctions if required were to Red Card as a first option downward and nil tolerance.
The Refs chosen by the IRB were universally considered the best available.
Craig Joubert was considered THE best in the World by many world wide.
It is true that OUTSIDE the RWC officials SH and NH deal with the breakdown area differently.
The direct kick in touch law is a re-jigged version of the old NSW dispensation law circa 1925.The NH could have vetoed this like everything
else .
This one,and that on the Mark were with a law keeping backlines,5 yards back from the scrum the only ELVS sanctioned by the NH except for technical ones.
The tackle rule states something like this "On being tackled the player MUST immediatly play the ball or release it and Roll away"
THAT law goes back to at least the 1940`s and was the basis of the classic ruck.
THE Breakdown area which evolved with the outlawing of the Ruck is a nightmare.
ALL TEAMS NH and SH approach the Breakdown the same,Hands in,Bridging,Sealing Off,Not rolling away,lazy running,not coming thru the gate.THOSE are practiced by ALL countries one of the biggest jokes is a player being pinged for not rolling away.WHEN he is be held down by the tackler.
The IRB must certainly sort this and the scrum laws as a matter of urgency.
The allocation of RWCS to date was Jointly Aus/Nz..then UK,then SA,Aus,then France,then NZ,then England then Japan.
To date it has been the cosy 8Ns cabal involved,and MANY have said this was THE best organised one to date.
Are you inferring some sort of conspiracy theory here?Like it or not the All Blacks have been THE best side in the World.Since RWCS were first played
whoever held the title World Champions.
To win the RWC you should be the ONLY Unbeaten side in the tournament that is as it always has been.
This one is no different,I dont NEED as an All Blacks fan to have them hold the RWC.For me they were the BEST team and Coaches before this RWC and still are.
IT would be a disgrace if ANY side could do just enough to qualify for a RWC Final.THEN win it after trying in only one match,IF you say France got the worst of the Refs decisions in the NZ game .I won`t disagree with you,or that they arguably deserved to win it.
BUT I will take issue with ANYONE who says the Ref only whistled one side because it is patently untrue.
Both sides got away with murder in the Scrums and Breakdown areas,High tackles ,punches,stampings ,kickings,gougings [the last 4 all alleged].
Vincent Clerc ,is a great wing,try scorer ,and actor,he should win a BAFTA for some of the holltwoods he`s performedin this tournament.

english osprey,
You are right that one of the primary reasons for the ELVs were complaints from Aus that Rugby was losing ground to League again. The thought was making the games a bit more open with more Tries scored would help interest (attendance, clothing purchases, and tv ratings). The parallel complaint was that Northern Hemisphere Rugby was becoming a bit too turgid and slow, even by historical NH standards. This was embraced by the IRB. The ELVs were trialed in South Africa before the "two laws, two hemispheres, one game" fiasco.

I also think your point about SH and NH referees is a good one. The only solution I see is for more cross-fertilisation at the NH club/franchise and Super 15 levels. Doing this only in the 6 Nations makes no sense. Where the IRB failed with the laws interpretation instructions to the referees is they should have been handed down back a full season prior. In other words, last June, not this June. The purpose would be to give everyone time to become comfortable with them.

Now you get to the tricky part. The RWC went to NZ when everyone knew this would not be a money spinner. No one ever questioned the excellence, passion and love of Rugby the Kiwis would put into it. Simply, that in today's world, it didn't make much economic sense for the sport. The tricky part is why. Only the people who were in those back rooms really know. The rumours is there were a number of handshake deals made regarding visits by the ABs, some quid pro quo, a little of the I will support you for 2015/2019 if you support me. All this is completely unsubstatiated, and never will truly be known. What is known is there were more lucritive bids made, and they lost. I guess we can read into that as we will, unless or until someone directly involved rats everyone out.

I promised a more cynical critiques so here goes,RWC has been awarded to
the 3Ns countries,UK [although nominally England]France,and again England but will end up UK.
Prior to the RWC,a format I dislike,that SA/Nz did`nt rate the 3Ns this year
and that.Ironicaly the test NZ targetted SA with a weakened team,then making 12 changes.Versus Australia they lost due to injuries of two key players Thomson and Read. {Kaino was on maternity leave]}.
When the All Black squad was chosen ,Certain Players missing specialists wings and a number seven were remarked upon.
The number of utility players as opposed to specialists was marked,I personaly commented on the fact.I thought the AB preperation with the A team not established a mistake.I still do but that is water under the bridge.
Also strictly on the strength of History a SAv Aus final seemed likely,at least
my head said that.My heart said AB v Aus on home advantage that was the early back ground.
One of the problems in this RWC especially was the media,team discipline etc.For example did it matter if England Players went bungee jumping or Wales went white water Rafting.If the facilities are there why not use them.
Prior to the RWC O`Connor and Zac Guilford were admonished for there behaviour.Then helped through it by there team mates,later Cory Jane and Isreal Dagg were in a bar till the early hours.
THIS was on a Thursday Morning before a Sunday match,Dagg was not involved injured.Cory Jane was told TED was not amused and told he`d better play a "Blinder2 he did !!!!.
France and England had late drinking problems too but were dealt with in house.THE constant media comments did`nt help and when NZ won the SF,all the give the Cup now world wide was stupid.
Problem is with everyone with a camera or a recorder privacy is near impossible now.
Another jarring note was that in the first round of games most of the Minnows had good games .The press was full of NO EASY games now,then reality.
The 4 day turn around was totally wrong now fixed for 2015,BUT what was worst for me.Tier 2 teams were picking weak sides v tier 1 sides in an attempt to make sure they qualified automatically.
THIS meant really there were no real Surprise teams like Argentina in 2007.
Will Carling stated that the France Manager versus players,and poor performance pre -final was all staged .I agree with him and consider it poor
Form,but it is a left handed compliment to NZ.Thinking they could`nt beat them twice in the same tournament.
I won`t refer to the tier 2 performances,and Refereeing except to say IRB should have ordered the edict.A year previously or left the Zero tolerance bit alone.
The performances of the Favourites,realistically 5 teams contrasted,firstly
England 6Ns champions should have stuck with Toby Flood,weakened by a couple of injuries .The Pack was`nt strong enough for 10 man game with Johnny Wilkinson kicking goals,which he did`nt do any way.
The England group was truly the group of death,BUT what I did`nt like was
once Ireland had defeated Australia.
It was well thats it England are now in the final,played France with a 10/12
combination that seemed to confuse the English Players.
AFTER Ireland had beaten Australia every thing changed,France no longer
needed to beat the All Blacks in the pool stage to maybe reach a Final.
They showed for 15 minutes they had the Guns,then Dan the Man turned the game.
Tonga were well worth there win,but the contempous ease with which they scored a try to be certain of going through there pool.
Injuries were a massive factor in this RWC,Australia sans Moore, Pocock,and a mid fielder.Good to see Suzy was still alive and well .
Irelands victory changed the whole thing ,especially for NZ now it was only one of the top 3 sides not 2.
Wales had a very good RWC by ther standards.BUT the Boks amazed me a brilliant try from Franny Steyn in first few minutes.Then great defence absorbing every thing Wales coud throw at them.
Poor Wales goal kicking and a refusal to go wide cost them the match.
The Boks only really tried anything twice and scored each time,you had the feeling that for Wales endeavour.If needs be the Boks couldstill summon up enough to win.
When Franny Steyn was injured the long range goal kicking option was lost to the Boks.
They played Australia using a balanced game they did`nt look comfortable with and lost.
Australia overall the Bok game excepted[not counting the bronze playoff]
had an indifferent RWC.Injuries cost them especially Kurtley Beale .
Berrick Barnes is a better option than Cooper at 10 for me.
Then they met a rampant NZ side who put in the performance of the RWC for me.
The Final was a great game but an Anti- Climax after the SF,the All Blacks were carrying the after effects. 12 tests in 14 weeks ,reduced eventually
to a fourth choice FH.
Facing a France who had an extra days rest,had barely broken sweat getting to the final,had nothing to lose and a point to prove.
It was an enthralling Final one of the best yet,arguably the wrong side won
but they did it by taking more of there chances than France.
New Zealand deservedly are RWC holders because they won every game.
The loss of Dan Carter and Mils Muliana were big blows,the vilification of Colin Slade was dispicable ,Given the service of Jimmy Cowan who was rubbish most of the time .
Aaron Crudon was fortunate have the complete Hurricane back line[bar Dagg]outside him. Then he was injured enter the HERO Stephen Donald [next stop Bath] comes on kicks the goal that matters closes out the game.
Then we have the little fat guy Piri Weepu take a bow ,nursed Slade and Crudon through several games.
Had a 92 % goalkicking record until the semi -final,He lost a close relative then had a Virus infection during SF.
PRE the Final he strained a groin muscle in warm up,what the coaches were thinking letting him take the goal kicks.I can`t really understand there is a precedent Don Clarke did the same versus Wales 1963.
Crudon or Dagg may have been better bets both being competent Goal kickers they could`nt have done worse.
THE Future for NZ looks bright only Afoa,Thorn,and Muliana are definately lost.DC and RM plus CS will need surgery but should be ok after that.
Hosea Gear,Cory Jane and SBW are out of contract but only SBW wil be going abroad for cash.
France remain an enigma, 3 Finals no wins,to date RWC winners have won all there games.
IF you only have to bother until youreach the final rather devalues it.