Guscott "Early exit for Wales or Australia"

First topic message reminder :

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

Cyril wrote:

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?

No, I didn't say that, you suggest because teams play better at home than away they concede less penalties.

Home advantage curtails many aspects, but conceding less penalties because they play better is not one of them.

Home crowd influences referees, not only because they intimidate them, but also because home broadcasters show replays on the big screen and then home crowds throw fits and the referee reacts to that.

Dubious decisions are made because of it.

In the last two years SA have received dubious decisions in NZ and OZ, yet nothing at home.

Against Argentina in Australia the scrums collapsed almost every time, and Argentina has shown to have the superior scrum in the competition, yet Australia got 50% of the calls.

There are many examples, you just need to look, and it has nothing to do with a team playing better at home.

There has been serious acedemic research on this in soccer. The belief is its the crowd ohh and ahhhing subtly influences the ref but the effect is certainly there. Its not just you don't get called for fouls - its also the other side get called more.

Reckon there's a bit of a trade off between home referee/crowd advantage and home pressure implosion in these RWCs. Get to the final, then it's all good and the home team really should win. But getting there in the first place is the tricky bit.

I recall the match last year vs. the springboks where whilst the scoreboard said Wales were in it till then end they looked by a good margin well out of their depth. The boks scored 3 tries to nil and seemed to be in cruise control for much of the match.

I don't see that changing anytime soon unfortunately. For Wales to win vs. the boks I think they would need their best ever day with no errors and hope that the boks have their very worst.

Wales can no longer shoot under the radar like Scotland can where teams under estimate them. They are a good side and most SH teams will take them seriously.. it makes it that much more difficult as teams will often now play close to a first XV against them.

Agree FA, we (NZ) will be putting out our best for England and Wales this tour.

Sometimes though our concept of what a B team is doesn't meet with reality. Look at England in the first test this year. Not the best side England could put out on paper but the one that put in the best performance in many ways. Squads are big enough or should be to time their best performances and know when they can relax.

I'm sure Ireland could testify to that playing NZ in 2005 when they'd changed their whole first fifteen...

Merged two threads on the same topic by request of Lord Dowlias

fa0019 wrote:I recall the match last year vs. the springboks where whilst the scoreboard said Wales were in it till then end they looked by a good margin well out of their depth. The boks scored 3 tries to nil and seemed to be in cruise control for much of the match.

I don't see that changing anytime soon unfortunately. For Wales to win vs. the boks I think they would need their best ever day with no errors and hope that the boks have their very worst.

Wales can no longer shoot under the radar like Scotland can where teams under estimate them. They are a good side and most SH teams will take them seriously.. it makes it that much more difficult as teams will often now play close to a first XV against them.

The kicker of course was even though Wales were a few minutes away from a historical win, I still KNEW we would lose. Its just that feeling of deja vu, we always find a way to lose a game vs the big 3.

IronMike wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I recall the match last year vs. the springboks where whilst the scoreboard said Wales were in it till then end they looked by a good margin well out of their depth. The boks scored 3 tries to nil and seemed to be in cruise control for much of the match.

I don't see that changing anytime soon unfortunately. For Wales to win vs. the boks I think they would need their best ever day with no errors and hope that the boks have their very worst.

Wales can no longer shoot under the radar like Scotland can where teams under estimate them. They are a good side and most SH teams will take them seriously.. it makes it that much more difficult as teams will often now play close to a first XV against them.

The kicker of course was even though Wales were a few minutes away from a historical win, I still KNEW we would lose. Its just that feeling of deja vu, we always find a way to lose a game vs the big 3.

Even had you guys won... it wouldn't have meant you were the better side if you understand what I mean... the scoreline flattered Wales a little. They scored 3 clinical tries and they physically smashed you all over the park... I recall Hibbard having another barnstormer but otherwise chaps like AW Jones were very quiet.

I do think that Wales should have taken more 3N scalps but in fairness I think SA and NZ have always been a bridge too far. AUS certainly Wales should have beaten, if not more often then AUS but for some reason they love the way you guys play.

In the end Wales have a very very good first XV bar their 10 issues. The main issues I would say is that a) teams know how to play Wales as they have little variation and its always almost the same. First 3 balls off possession smash up the middle... then spread it wide/kick and repeat and b) their support players, the squad isn't as great as their peers.... and it all counts these days.

They have a physical game and require a big platform but teams like SA and NZ are simply bigger these days. We all thought the new rules a while back would generate smaller forwards... instead they have got larger. If the boks put out their first choice pack these days it will weigh in around 930kgs and even they have been recently outmuscled by Argentina (something I haven't seen since ENG did the same in 2004).

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: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!

Kiakahaaotearoa

Didn't say they will never beat Australia. I said at the moment they are showing they cannot beat Australia.

NZ have beaten Australia 12 times in a row. NZ will generally start heavy favourites.

Breaking that duck of losses is easier said than done - just ask the Irish about NZ.

England were in patchy form going into the 2011 RWC. The team is in better shape these days.

Head to heads are very underrated - psychologically some teams are at a disadvantage before the game has started.

Wales fit into that category with Australia - they should be able to beat Australia but they don't. For whatever reason Australia win again and again - it's not just about being better - it's mental too.

Wales don't seem to have the same mental barriers when it comes to 6 nations sides.

I hate to be pedantic but Wales cannot beat Australia refers to the future and not the past. In their past meetings, Wales could not beat Australia but that does not mean they cannot beat them in November. Evidently it is an uphill task and the weight of history can be oppressive but failure is not guaranteed.

If England were patchy in 2011 then they were positively rag-doll in 2007. Got humped by SA in the pool and then made the final against the same team much like France in 2011, but admittedly not as bad.

In a RWC ANYTHING is possible in that Wales v Australia list nearly every defeat was within
a single score.Wales v England there is only one game difference in there history between
them.

Home advantage will be worth some points but not that much,Argentina Scrum for example
Ref picked LH dropping the shoulder twice in NZ match penalised him.IF the Ref had seen
it before OZ Match may have been looking for it too.

IF England meet Nz or SA there record versus them is poor the beat Nz maybe once in
10 years and have never beaten them in a RWC.

True. Would fancy England to nick a win against either of them at home.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I hate to be pedantic but Wales cannot beat Australia refers to the future and not the past. In their past meetings, Wales could not beat Australia but that does not mean they cannot beat them in November. Evidently it is an uphill task and the weight of history can be oppressive but failure is not guaranteed.

If England were patchy in 2011 then they were positively rag-doll in 2007. Got humped by SA in the pool and then made the final against the same team much like France in 2011, but admittedly not as bad.

Failure isn't guaranteed but I am backing Australia heavily as of now.

I am not referring to the future. I am referring to the present. Wales might look more likely to beat Aus just before the RWC but as of now I would say Aus are big favourites.

As SA would be vs England based on current form. That is a monkey it would be good if England can get off their back before the RWC.

emack2 I agree but England can at least take confidence from beating NZ relatively recently - at Twickenham.

You say anything can happen in a RWC but generally the same 5 teams do the best - France,England,SA,Australia and NZ. They have the best RWC records. There's a reason for that.

Wales can of course beat England and Australia but don't just write off records as being insignificant.

If you haven't beaten someone in a long time then doubts do creep in. Belief is so important in sport - and holding one's nerve.

E.g. look at NZ breaking Irish hearts - it's what NZ do.

Referring to the present? What test rugby is on at the moment? Only RC games. When you say Wales CANNOT beat Australia, that is in reference to their next match. To talk about some hypothetical present match-up is of no value. Wales COULD not beat Australia in their last matches. Of course Australia are big favourites as are SA against England based on their past records. I'm not writing off past records. It is you the one writing off future opportunities. Wales CANNOT beat Australia means there is absolutely no hope of them winning in November. The odds are not very good but they're better than zero. Just look at the bookies' odds to see that.

kiakahaaotearoa does it matter if there is a test match on or not?

I feel like you are being very pedantic.

Wales have shown an inability to beat Australia in quite a while - this would suggest that Australia will be the favourites yet again.

Till this current Welsh team actually do beat Australia - I will write them off as of now they haven't shown the ability to get over the line.

Not doubting Wales' ability to getting close to winning - it's the winning part that they have struggled with.

When I say they can't beat Australia - I am looking at their losses to Australia since Gatland took charge of Wales.

Wales need to show they can beat Australia by doing it.

It's like Ireland and NZ - Ireland got so close and should have beaten NZ but they didn't.

It's not just about the players - it's belief.

Getting close to winning is not the same as winning obviously!

I am being pedantic but I'll phrase it like this: will you bet all your money and assets you own on an Australian win this November?

I'd give Wales as much chance of beating Australia as Australia has of beating NZ.

Yes they at times can compete, sometimes come close and have the potential to nick the odd win here and there.... yet it seems when it comes to Wales, Australia always finds another gear... and its the same with Australia when you speak of NZ at the moment.

Yet they drew in Sydney...

If you'd said I think Wales have practically no chance of winning I might have agreed with you, albeit begrudgingly. Sweeping statements like Wales cannot beat Australia to me is like saying Argentina may as well not bother playing NZ in a RC match as they have never beaten them. I'm all for kicking the underdog when it comes to rugby but you have to give the opposition more respect than that.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Yet they drew in Sydney...

If you'd said I think Wales have practically no chance of winning I might have agreed with you, albeit begrudgingly. Sweeping statements like Wales cannot beat Australia to me is like saying Argentina may as well not bother playing NZ in a RC match as they have never beaten them. I'm all for kicking the underdog when it comes to rugby but you have to give the opposition more respect than that.

I do think AUS are on their day a decent match for NZ but at the moment with many key players out its still a 1/10 type scenario. What they need is chaps like Pocock, O'Connor, Beale, Cooper, Genia, Higginbotton, Folau etc all to be fit at the same time. Simply hasn't been the case.

Argentina is different. Its a far bigger gulf and to be honest I don't see for the next 10 years even if they get another Pichot 07 side together again. They need real internal development to get a genuine result... Italy had Scotland in their 6N pool to aim for and could attract talent Argentinians into their side. Argentina have no such luck nor financial backing.

A draw against SA is a genuine result. It should've been a win as was the case in their home match this year. Of course they have all sorts of things going against them and they might well have to wait a while before they get a win. But you can't just dismiss them completely every time your team comes up against them. There's a big difference between expecting your team to win and thinking the opposition has no chance whatsoever.

kiakahaatorea no I wouldn't because I am not that invested in that particular match.

Drawing is not the same as winning.

England drew with SA - it's still not winning.

As for Argentina - as of now they don't look like beating the tri nations sides - close but not a win.

I am not talking about possibility, I am talking about Wale's current inability to beat the Aussies. They might change this in November - if they do that then of course Wales' chances vs Australia in the RWC will be higher.

Cannot and haven't is a bit different but you know where he's coming from. Like saying that in the last year NZ have shown themselves to be beatable without actually losing. Sounds strange but is perfectly true when you've watched the games.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:A draw against SA is a genuine result. It should've been a win as was the case in their home match this year. Of course they have all sorts of things going against them and they might well have to wait a while before they get a win. But you can't just dismiss them completely every time your team comes up against them. There's a big difference between expecting your team to win and thinking the opposition has no chance whatsoever.

A draw is what it is I'm afraid.

You can't say you lost but you can't say you won either and given SA smashed them in the same RC by 70 points in the other fixture shows you that both may have been a little on the extreme side and a comfortable SA win in both is the actual place between both sides at the moment.

Ok Wales cannot get out of the RWC pool. Is that invested enough in their matches for you?

I will say no more on the matter. It is clear to me you do not grasp my gripe with what you wrote and as it matters not a jot in the general context of this forum I will not clutter up this thread anymore banging on about a nit-picking point. Let's just leave it at you think Australia will beat Wales based on their previous record and put it on the record that I agree with that statement.

kiakahaaotearoa

You are right - perhaps I am unfairly dismissing Wales. I just think that they need to prove themselves.

It reminds me of England vs Italy - Italy have never beaten England but have come very close on a few occasions. They've beaten every other team in the 6 nations bar England.

In my opinion Wales face a similar sort of challenge against Australia that Italy do when they face England.

Yes we can also add that as things stand now - I think England and Australia will go through to the next round.

I was thinking of the same example between England and Italy.

We were always on the same page. This pedant just happens to be overly stubborn unnecessarily at times.

I'm not sure I understand. Wales have beaten Australia, and not way back in the mists of time either. How does that compare to Italy's winless against England?

In the context that despite what has happened in recent head-to-heads, you can never completely write off an opponent no matter how confident you might be of a win.

Anyone think England fans might be getting a little overconfident and might slip up?

Just looking there at the 6 nations table. Despite all the praise he is getting, Stuart Lancaster hasn't won the 6 nations yet. Martin Johnson was the last England coach to win it back in 2011.

On the face of it it doesn't look like a big deal because England have been close on a number of occasions. However as an Ireland fan its starting to look like Eddie O'Sullivan 2.0. The team can perform well consistency but always just missing out on winning the competition. They always slipped up in a big game.

The danger for England would be a bad 6 nations. Even if they don't win, it'll be another season without success and Lancaster will be going into the world cup having won nothing. That in itself wouldn't be too bad but the real danger is the feel good factor wearing off. Not to mention the dreaded media. If they turn on England the heat will really come on them.

So as of now they're looking alright but I think thats mainly down to the positive PR and consistent but not great performance on the pitch.

I think England playing at home should make the players confident. Their significant losses have not been at home. That said, you're right that home advantage can be a double-edged sword. England couldn't ask for better RWC preparation with games against NZ, SA, Samoa and Oz. That's a step up from their pool but there does seem to be an expectation that home advantage should see England approach those matches thinking they can win all of them.

The media might let them off the hook with a loss or two depending on the manner of the defeats. But if England then fail against the big three the heat will go on and that might force SL into his shell and go for a win above all else.

Personally I think Wales are in an ideal position. Familiar with conditions, no one giving them much hope and therefore little in the way of media spotlight.

If England perform well this November, then I imagine that to have a spill-on effect going into the 6n with no June internationals to disrupt their momentum. An interesting year of rugby ahead...

I hope both Wales and England send AUS home early.

But I can see Wales losing to Fiji and beating England.

profitius wrote:Anyone think England fans might be getting a little overconfident and might slip up?

Just looking there at the 6 nations table. Despite all the praise he is getting, Stuart Lancaster hasn't won the 6 nations yet. Martin Johnson was the last England coach to win it back in 2011.

On the face of it it doesn't look like a big deal because England have been close on a number of occasions. However as an Ireland fan its starting to look like Eddie O'Sullivan 2.0. The team can perform well consistency but always just missing out on winning the competition. They always slipped up in a big game.

The danger for England would be a bad 6 nations. Even if they don't win, it'll be another season without success and Lancaster will be going into the world cup having won nothing. That in itself wouldn't be too bad but the real danger is the feel good factor wearing off. Not to mention the dreaded media. If they turn on England the heat will really come on them.

So as of now they're looking alright but I think thats mainly down to the positive PR and consistent but not great performance on the pitch.

I think you're right in regards the outlook generally being bright due to the consistent performances. There's been a couple of bad performances and a few bad ones for 40 minutes but we do look good. I don't think people should be too caught up in winning the 6Ns as we could have easily done so if France had finished off their good chance at the end of the Ireland game. If that sticks does it make England better? No of course it doesn't. There's 3 teams in that group who stand a good chance going through, England being at home helps them and I would be disappointed to go out in the groups. I don't expect to win the WC but think it's possible. It won't be the end of the world as the majority of the squad are quite young and will be involved afterwards.

I suspect that the well documented problems in the Welsh game over the past 12 months have probably scuppered their World Cup challenge. The core of the side is now playing outside Wales so Gatland will have limited access to them.

The squad will have been fragmented by the dispute between their union and their employers, they have responded by either: forsaking the Welsh Game to play outside Wales, remaining loyal to their Regions or in the case of Warburton saying sod all of you I am looking after myself! Hardly the action of a born leader of men.

England have progressed steadily under Lancaster, they are becoming very structured and efficient and with some real flair from Tuilagi, Brown and Yarde. At home they will also have the referee!

Australia have also progressed since the Lions tour and will be difficult to beat. So Wales, despite the excellent players they have, this probably is not going to be their best tournament.

[quote="Seagultaf"]I suspect that the well documented problems in the Welsh game over the past 12 months have probably scuppered their World Cup challenge. The core of the side is now playing outside Wales so Gatland will have limited access to them.

He will have as much access to them as others have within the IRB guidelines just not as much as he would want.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
I think you're right in regards the outlook generally being bright due to the consistent performances. There's been a couple of bad performances and a few bad ones for 40 minutes but we do look good. I don't think people should be too caught up in winning the 6Ns as we could have easily done so if France had finished off their good chance at the end of the Ireland game. If that sticks does it make England better? No of course it doesn't. There's 3 teams in that group who stand a good chance going through, England being at home helps them and I would be disappointed to go out in the groups. I don't expect to win the WC but think it's possible. It won't be the end of the world as the majority of the squad are quite young and will be involved afterwards.

Thats true but being an Ireland fan we had numerous 2nd place finishes, always just a bit unlucky. Bad luck here, an unlucky bounce there etc. At the end of the day under O'Sullivan Ireland were consistent but won nothing and went into world cups and underperformed. At least with Kidney (who won things with Munster), Ireland were not as consistent but won big games.


So what I'm saying is consistency isn't always a positive. Since the 6 nations started Ireland won 50 games to Wales' 40 games won. However Wales have won the 6 nations 4 times to Irelands 2. If France beat Ireland last march Ireland would have won it once compared to Wales' 4 times. So in my opinion its better to have peaks and troughs rather than be consistently second.


And taking that into account, I certainly wouldn't write off Wales. They were in a bad shape coming into the last world cup, picked a new, young team and could have beaten France in the semi final with 14 men. They're in a better position now than 4 years ago.

Fair enough I d always rather win more games and never win a tournament. Wales have got some great players but can t help but feel Gatland is starting to hold them back slightly.

Before and during the 2011 RWC I made several predictions that Ireland would pull of
a surprise they did.NZ couldn't win whether they won the RWC or not they did`nt
the carpers are still going on.That the Final would be an anti-climax as the SF would
be there FINAL it was.

In 2015 expect the SF to be THE big match whether it be ENG/AUS v NZ/SA the final
will again be an anti-climax.

For the Trainspotters here the ONLY RWC England won they won every match unlike
there two lost finals.THAT a team can lose 2 games at the group stage and still progress
on bonus points or points difference.

DON`T count any team out this time all sides have games in the same time period unlike
previously.Tier 2 sides won`t have to play 2 games in the same period tier1 sides play 1
England as the home side are expected to walk it according to some pundits despite
never having beaten Sa or NZ in a RWC.

emack2 wrote:[A] team can lose 2 games at the group stage and still progress on bonus points or points difference.

I thought perhaps that had only ever happened to France at the last tournament. Looking back, it seems Fiji lost two games at the 1987 Cup but still advanced in second place. That tournament set another precedent when France topped their pool despite not winning all their games. They drew 20-20 with Scotland but finished ahead of the Scots on points difference.

In 1999, Wales topped their pool while actually losing a game. Samoa and Argentina also dropped a game apiece in that pool but the odd five pool structure that year meant one third-placed team went to the play-offs with the five second-placed teams to decide the quarter finalists. Argentina was that team.

emack2 wrote:England as the home side are expected to walk it according to some pundits despite
never having beaten Sa or NZ in a RWC.

England beat SA comfortably in the group stages in 2003.

You really need to do your research

Nice one Cyril my error constructive as always, Boks were eliminated 2003 by NZ.
England obliterated at Group stage by Boks and comfortably beaten in the Final.2007

I HATE RWC`s but 2007 was best to date nearest to genuine KO tournament yet
so many preconceived ideas scotched.No doubt 2015 will have surprises too.

Do you think there ll be a surprise team this time? I m going out on a limb to say it ll be NZ with an away win.

emack2 wrote:Nice one Cyril my error constructive as always, Boks were eliminated 2003 by NZ.
England obliterated at Group stage by Boks and comfortably beaten in the Final.2007

I HATE RWC`s but 2007 was best to date nearest to genuine KO tournament yet
so many preconceived ideas scotched.No doubt 2015 will have surprises too.

I was just correcting an error you made. I don't see what SA being beaten by NZ has to do with anything when you clearly stated England had never beaten SA in a World Cup.

Yes, we know you hate RWCs. You rarely make a post without mentioning it.

For what it's worth, I'm not the biggest fan of the World Cup either.

Basing an argument on facts and stats all of them would suggest that England are the front runners for the 2015 world cup,with them being multiple grand slam champs and all.

On due consideration when I say I hate RWC`s on reflection it is not strictly true.What
I dislike intensely is what it has become for reasons of Money etc. certain preconceptions.
As an example only the same little circle can host it Sh/NH alternately and the same hosts
over and over again.

That only 4 or 5 sides can possibly win it,that it is the only important Tournament and
fielding understrength sides is acceptable for the greater good.THAT is not only being
disrespectful to your opponents,cheapening the shirt but also considering betting
sharp practice too.

I sadly was born into the age of reality,tours,etc.dirty/robust play the norm no
quarter given.When Provincial./Club sides took pride in beating Touring sides
not hiding there best players for test sides.

My ethos differs greatly from many here EVERY Test match matters,you play to
win and field your strongest possible side.I am aware of course that commercial
considerations means seeding another thing I dislike.The practice until 2015
whereby Tier 2 sides had to play maybe 2 games in the same period that Tier1 sides
played 1.The rules should be the same for all,also drawing 4 years in advance is ridiculous
more tickets at affordable prices for genuine fans NOT Corporate Jollies.

Once the first Group stage has been finished the top 8 sides go into a second 2 groups
and the last 4 go into a blind draw.That way the so called hard/soft side of the draws
avoided.

I DO really enjoy the Rugby involved especially the Tier2 sides with nothing to lose
having a go at Tier1 sides.AS to who wins it REALLY don`t care but believe ALL
sides competing should THINK they can win if not why bother competing?

AS To 2015 would be very surprised if NZ/SA fail to win there Groups unbeaten
IRELAND or France could win theres.

Group A is the big one England are favourites realistically on the premise of
Home advantage/Fortress Twickenham/Strong Scrum/and there progression
under Stuart Lancaster.

To be frank under normal conditions would expect SA/NZ anywhere Aus maybe
to beat England.In a 6Ns France,Ireland,Wales and on a bad day even Scotland
COULD beat them.

profitius wrote:Anyone think England fans might be getting a little overconfident and might slip up?

Just looking there at the 6 nations table. Despite all the praise he is getting, Stuart Lancaster hasn't won the 6 nations yet. Martin Johnson was the last England coach to win it back in 2011.

On the face of it it doesn't look like a big deal because England have been close on a number of occasions. However as an Ireland fan its starting to look like Eddie O'Sullivan 2.0. The team can perform well consistency but always just missing out on winning the competition. They always slipped up in a big game.

The danger for England would be a bad 6 nations. Even if they don't win, it'll be another season without success and Lancaster will be going into the world cup having won nothing. That in itself wouldn't be too bad but the real danger is the feel good factor wearing off. Not to mention the dreaded media. If they turn on England the heat will really come on them.

So as of now they're looking alright but I think thats mainly down to the positive PR and consistent but not great performance on the pitch.

It's not overconfidence. It's just being confident. England aren't a bad side. They are currently ranked 4th in the world. We as fans expect England to get out of their pool. There is no guarantee they will of course but England at Twickenham aren't the easiest side to beat. England have beaten Wales and Australia in recent memory so it's not as if they have mental baggage.

England are probably 3rd favourites to win the RWC - give them a slight edge over the Aussies because of home advantage.