NH teams have less than zero chance of winning RWC2015

by Poorfour Tue 04 Nov 2014, 6:01 pm

According to The Telegraph

I mean, they don't say it directly, but they do say that NZ's chances in the RWC are 90%, Australia's 70%, South Africa's also 70% and Argentina's 40%. Given these events are mutually exclusive, the total probability of an SH win - if they are right - is 270%. Which, on the assumption that the IRB aren't going to treat it like an Under 7s tournament and give medals to everybody, suggests that the collective chances of the NH teams must be a whopping -170%. They might as well not turn up.

It's not the first article I've seen where the chances of different teams winning the RWC have totalled over 200%. Is this some elaborate journalists' joke, or have fatal flaws in English numeracy finally been exposed?

by **Biltong** Tue 04 Nov 2014, 6:20 pm

South Africa won't win it, it is not because I am negative, but due to the fact that they have to beat England/Australia/Wales then New Zealand/France and then England/Wales/Australia in succession to win.

The likely outcome if I had to guess, Australia, New Zealand and England.

What are the odds?

by **LondonTiger** Tue 04 Nov 2014, 6:23 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/newzealand/11207613/Autumn-internationals-How-southern-hemispheres-finest-compare-ahead-of-their-European-tours.html

The article.

Would love to know what they mean by World Cup Chances

by maestegmafia Tue 04 Nov 2014, 6:26 pm

Biltong wrote:South Africa won't win it, it is not because I am negative, but due to the fact that they have to beat England/Australia/Wales then New Zealand/France and then England/Wales/Australia in succession to win.

The likely outcome if I had to guess, Australia, New Zealand and England.

What are the odds?

England have to get out of their group first Bill. Their form vs Wales is poor, one win since before the last World Cup. Australia have had the measure if Wales as we are constantly reminded but the Aussies have a lot of work to do pre-World Cup with a new coach just installed.

I would say Wales and England are favourites to go through in the group at the moment not the Aussies.

by **Biltong** Tue 04 Nov 2014, 6:31 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
Biltong wrote:South Africa won't win it, it is not because I am negative, but due to the fact that they have to beat England/Australia/Wales then New Zealand/France and then England/Wales/Australia in succession to win.

The likely outcome if I had to guess, Australia, New Zealand and England.

What are the odds?

England have to get out of their group first Bill. Their form vs Wales is poor, one win since before the last World Cup. Australia have had the measure if Wales as we are constantly reminded but the Aussies have a lot of work to do pre-World Cup with a new coach just installed.

I would say Wales and England are favourites to go through in the group at the moment not the Aussies.

Maes, watch Australia this month, they will be your biggest threat in your pool

by Bullsbok Tue 04 Nov 2014, 6:50 pm

Biltong wrote:South Africa won't win it, it is not because I am negative, but due to the fact that they have to beat England/Australia/Wales then New Zealand/France and then England/Wales/Australia in succession to win.

The likely outcome if I had to guess, Australia, New Zealand and England.

What are the odds?

Oh please we wont win it because my Aunt Suzie got denied an english visa , i'd thought to invite her to cater for her favourite team the All blacks... censored

by nathan Tue 04 Nov 2014, 7:36 pm

Mm, we won the last game though which stopped the run of 3 losses. Wouldn't write it down as a win a full year before

by HammerofThunor Tue 04 Nov 2014, 8:22 pm

Argentina have a 40% chance of winning the World Cup? Nearly 50:50? Can't mean that surely.

by Barney McGrew did it Tue 04 Nov 2014, 8:46 pm

England have little chance of winning it (I'll let you know how little when anyone tells me what our team will be).

The rest of the NH have no chance of winning it.

Aus have as much chance as France of winning it.

by Hound of Harrow Tue 04 Nov 2014, 8:53 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
Biltong wrote:South Africa won't win it, it is not because I am negative, but due to the fact that they have to beat England/Australia/Wales then New Zealand/France and then England/Wales/Australia in succession to win.

The likely outcome if I had to guess, Australia, New Zealand and England.

What are the odds?

England have to get out of their group first Bill. Their form vs Wales is poor, one win since before the last World Cup. Australia have had the measure if Wales as we are constantly reminded but the Aussies have a lot of work to do pre-World Cup with a new coach just installed.

I would say Wales and England are favourites to go through in the group at the moment not the Aussies.

England won the last game and stopped Wales scoring a try. In fact it was a case of England v The Leigh Halfpenny show and his assistant 'The Dylan Hartley indiscipline' sideshow.

Not only did Halfpenny kick all the penalties he attempted, but he also pulled off try saving tackles on May and then Burrell late on. A tackle that resulted in Halpenny copping a serious shoulder injury.

If it wasn't for Halfpenny England would have been nearer a 30 point winning margin. I certainly remember it being a fairly comfortable win despite ranting at Hartley for his indiscretions steam

by WELL-PAST-IT Tue 04 Nov 2014, 9:26 pm

MM looks at life through red tinted glasses, we merely look through rose coloured lenses

by ChequeredJersey Tue 04 Nov 2014, 10:03 pm

We shall see how Aus end up. Cheika is a good coach but frankly so were Deans and Mckenzie. And beating the Baabaas, even a decent Baabaa side, means little and less

by Knowsit17 Tue 04 Nov 2014, 10:44 pm

Hound of Harrow wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
Biltong wrote:South Africa won't win it, it is not because I am negative, but due to the fact that they have to beat England/Australia/Wales then New Zealand/France and then England/Wales/Australia in succession to win.

The likely outcome if I had to guess, Australia, New Zealand and England.

What are the odds?

England have to get out of their group first Bill. Their form vs Wales is poor, one win since before the last World Cup. Australia have had the measure if Wales as we are constantly reminded but the Aussies have a lot of work to do pre-World Cup with a new coach just installed.

I would say Wales and England are favourites to go through in the group at the moment not the Aussies.

England won the last game and stopped Wales scoring a try. In fact it was a case of England v The Leigh Halfpenny show and his assistant 'The Dylan Hartley indiscipline' sideshow.

Not only did Halfpenny kick all the penalties he attempted, but he also pulled off try saving tackles on May and then Burrell late on. A tackle that resulted in Halpenny copping a serious shoulder injury.

If it wasn't for Halfpenny England would have been nearer a 30 point winning margin. I certainly remember it being a fairly comfortable win despite ranting at Hartley for his indiscretions

Not disputing much of that. But I think what maes is alluding to is that over the last 4 games it's Wales 3-1 England. England won the last one and deserved it, fair enough. But it's hardly outrageous to suggest that their recent record vs Wales is somewhat patchy at best, at least going on results since 2011.

I have to subdue a chuckle whenever this is brought up and people seem incapable of seeing beyond the last game.

Speaking of not scoring any tries, England's two in the last game were their first and only tries scored vs Wales since the warm-up game at Twickenham prior to the last RWC. They had previously been held try-less by Wales over the last 3 straight games between the sides.

by Taylorman Tue 04 Nov 2014, 10:46 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:We shall see how Aus end up. Cheika is a good coach but frankly so were Deans and Mckenzie. And beating the Baabaas, even a decent Baabaa side, means little and less

Half the side werent the main Oz side versus the Baabaas so I think you'll be surprised how well they play. They beat the Boks and drew/ ran NZ close in two matches recently ...and all that was under the weather/ haze of the Ewan/ Beale and co saga. Here the cobwebs have cleared a bit. The backs look particularly sharp.

by ChequeredJersey Tue 04 Nov 2014, 10:47 pm

We will see

by GLove39 Tue 04 Nov 2014, 11:14 pm

England will top the group only to be shockingly knocked out by Scotland in the quarter finals! You heard it here first!

by Lowlandbrit Tue 04 Nov 2014, 11:20 pm

Poorfour wrote:NZ's chances in the RWC are 90%, Australia's 70%, South Africa's also 70% and Argentina's 40%. Given these events are mutually exclusive, the total probability of an SH win - if they are right - is 270%.

by Poorfour Tue 04 Nov 2014, 11:27 pm

Knowsit17 wrote:

Not disputing much of that. But I think what maes is alluding to is that over the last 4 games it's Wales 3-1 England. England won the last one and deserved it, fair enough. But it's hardly outrageous to suggest that their recent record vs Wales is somewhat patchy at best, at least going on results since 2011.

I have to subdue a chuckle whenever this is brought up and people seem incapable of seeing beyond the last game.

Speaking of not scoring any tries, England's two in the last game were their first and only tries scored vs Wales since the warm-up game at Twickenham prior to the last RWC. They had previously been held try-less by Wales over the last 3 straight games between the sides.

If you only look at the results, that's true. But the context is important. The first of those game was pre-Lancaster and very few of the current first choice players were involved.

In the second game, a very inexperienced England side faced a Wales team on a roll post-RWC (and en route to a Grand Slam). A Welsh win was always the most likely result. But it was tantalisingly close to a draw. England were denied the try that would have given Farrell a kick to level the scores courtesy of a (sound) TMO decision on the grounding of a try, a (dubious) decision by Steve Walsh not to act on the advantage that he had been playing and an (even more dubious) decision not to award a penalty try when Wales collapsed a rolling maul about 2m from their line. It was clearly illegal (because he awarded the advantage for it), and it clearly prevented a try, because the maul was moving and very close to the line.

The third game was also Walsh-assisted. Wales were good for the win against an England with a distinctly unabalanced back row, but Walsh's total inability to tell the difference between "on the body" and "on the hem of the sleeve" at every scrum effectively ended the game as a contest.

Between the third game and the fourth, the scrum engagement laws changed and Wales were probably the team most diasdvantaged by the change. Adam Jones adapted poorly and went from being a penalty-winning machine to a penalty-conceding machine. At the same time, teams began to realise how to play against Gatlandball and discover that Wales didn't have an effective Plan B.

We've not yet seen if anything has really changed for Wales, and allied to their ongoing inability to get wins against SHsides, England fans have got a reasonable basis for confidence. All of which said, the 6N trip to Cardiff next year will be a tense experience.

by Hound of Harrow Wed 05 Nov 2014, 12:07 am

Aye Knowsit - I'm not disputing the recent results record is in Wales' favour. But I feel England are gaining momentum, despite that godawful 1st half in the 3rd test in NZ. And the 'Cardiff car crash' in 2013.

If Wales can summon up the rugby they played over first 60 minutes of the 2nd test in SA over 80 minutes then they will be a handful for anyone.

by bedfordwelsh Wed 05 Nov 2014, 6:14 am

My heart will always say Wales, (it did even in the deepest darkest days of the 90s) but my head doesn't really know what to think at the moment.

I think England are faves to win the group but there will be an enormous amount of pressure on them what with home advantage etc etc.

I know the WRU and a lot of Welsh fans wanted our Oz game played at the MS but I think that would have added more pressure to the game, both teams will be away from home and both should get a good amount of support.

At the moment my head says:

England will beat Wales
Wales will beat Australia (yes I think we will)
Australia will beat England

by GavinDragon Wed 05 Nov 2014, 6:20 am

if we play with the intensity of the SA test for 80 minutes we will be in with a chance for both test matches

anything less than that then we will lose. we are not a side who can play poorly and win

by Hound of Harrow Wed 05 Nov 2014, 7:24 am

Gavin - Wales will need to improve their discipline from the 2nd SA test. You lost two to yellow cards when the pressure came on and SA ruthlessly exploited their advantage.

We all know how the game ended, but Halfpenny* would have nailed that tackle legally and the game won.

* He can win and save you games.

by bedfordwelsh Wed 05 Nov 2014, 7:43 am

Hound of Harrow wrote:Gavin - Wales will need to improve their discipline from the 2nd SA test. You lost two to yellow cards when the pressure came on and SA ruthlessly exploited their advantage.

We all know how the game ended, but Halfpenny* would have nailed that tackle legally and the game won.

* He can win and save you games.

Williams (or Halfpenny) shouldn't have had to make that tackle if North had got his man first. Halfpenny isn't afraid to 'throw' himself in like Williams did mund.

by HammerofThunor Wed 05 Nov 2014, 8:00 am

Yeah, it's 3-1 if you carefully select which games you go to (people always seem to do this in their favour chin

). Go back 4 years and it's 3-3 (2-2 in competitive games). Go back 2 years and it's 1-1. But go back 3 years and it's 2-1 (to Wales). Go back 3.3456 and it's 3-1. Go back 3.3468 and it's 3-2. Go back 5 years and it's 3-4 (to England). Who cares? It means bugger all. Results from last year are hardly relevant, the ones older than even less.

by TobyBryant Wed 05 Nov 2014, 8:04 am

Poorfour wrote:According to The Telegraph

I mean, they don't say it directly, but they do say that NZ's chances in the RWC are 90%, Australia's 70%, South Africa's also 70% and Argentina's 40%. Given these events are mutually exclusive, the total probability of an SH win - if they are right - is 270%. Which, on the assumption that the IRB aren't going to treat it like an Under 7s tournament and give medals to everybody, suggests that the collective chances of the NH teams must be a whopping -170%. They might as well not turn up.

It's not the first article I've seen where the chances of different teams winning the RWC have totalled over 200%. Is this some elaborate journalists' joke, or have fatal flaws in English numeracy finally been exposed?

Some people struggle with how probability works.

by bedfordwelsh Wed 05 Nov 2014, 8:07 am

HammerofThunor wrote:Yeah, it's 3-1 if you carefully select which games you go to (people always seem to do this in their favour ). Go back 4 years and it's 3-3 (2-2 in competitive games). Go back 2 years and it's 1-1. But go back 3 years and it's 2-1 (to Wales). Go back 3.3456 and it's 3-1. Go back 3.3468 and it's 3-2. Go back 5 years and it's 3-4 (to England). Who cares? It means bugger all. Results from last year are hardly relevant, the ones older than even less.

Hammer,

Does that mean Wales' 9 losses on the bounce to Australia don't matter phew thank god for that Wink

. Seriously though you are right to a degree as players involved possibly 3/4/5 years back might not even be involved now. I do however think it does come a pyshcological problem after a while like it has with Wales at the moent - it must play on your mind that you get so close to winning but then we lose in the final 5 minutes or so.

by LordDowlais Wed 05 Nov 2014, 8:14 am

Hound of Harrow wrote:Gavin - Wales will need to improve their discipline from the 2nd SA test. You lost two to yellow cards when the pressure came on and SA ruthlessly exploited their advantage.

We all know how the game ended, but Halfpenny* would have nailed that tackle legally and the game won.

* He can win and save you games.

Hound to be fair, Peiterson should never have gotten into our 22, George North should have ploughed him into touch, but St George seems to be above criticism for some reason, and now we have the 6 and a half foot, 18 stone baby in the centre for Saturday, the Aussie backs will have a field day running through him, for a big boy, he just will not tackle.

by **George Carlin** Wed 05 Nov 2014, 8:36 am

I think that likelihood of Gavin Mairs and Steve James being idiots is 147%.

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 05 Nov 2014, 9:33 am

HammerofThunor wrote:Yeah, it's 3-1 if you carefully select which games you go to (people always seem to do this in their favour ). Go back 4 years and it's 3-3 (2-2 in competitive games). Go back 2 years and it's 1-1. But go back 3 years and it's 2-1 (to Wales). Go back 3.3456 and it's 3-1. Go back 3.3468 and it's 3-2. Go back 5 years and it's 3-4 (to England). Who cares? It means bugger all. Results from last year are hardly relevant, the ones older than even less.

Haha....I like that. I love it when this 3 year thing is rolled out dispite getting hammered last time??

by Poorfour Wed 05 Nov 2014, 9:41 am

George Carlin wrote:I think that likelihood of Gavin Mairs and Steve James being idiots is 147%.

Why so low?

by **George Carlin** Wed 05 Nov 2014, 11:12 am

Poorfour wrote:
George Carlin wrote:I think that likelihood of Gavin Mairs and Steve James being idiots is 147%.

Why so low?

Decreased personal liability, on the basis of my assumption that they had been drinking heavily at the time they cobbled that lazy bunch of old scrote together.

by asoreleftshoulder Wed 05 Nov 2014, 12:41 pm

I think this article fits nicely alongside the one in the OP

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/power-rankings-for-autumn-internationals-296280.html

There's just something a little bit off about these rankings.

by GunsGerms Wed 05 Nov 2014, 12:49 pm

I reckon Australia will win the WC. Cheika will knock them in to shape and they have a nice enough draw.

by **George Carlin** Wed 05 Nov 2014, 1:31 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:I think this article fits nicely alongside the one in the OP

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/power-rankings-for-autumn-internationals-296280.html

There's just something a little bit off about these rankings.

I did a double take at the line

Wales have not beaten any of the big three Southern Hemisphere teams since 2009.

Wales were Six Nations champions twice during that period. Completely bizarre.

by Knowsit17 Wed 05 Nov 2014, 1:36 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:Yeah, it's 3-1 if you carefully select which games you go to (people always seem to do this in their favour ). Go back 4 years and it's 3-3 (2-2 in competitive games). Go back 2 years and it's 1-1. But go back 3 years and it's 2-1 (to Wales). Go back 3.3456 and it's 3-1. Go back 3.3468 and it's 3-2. Go back 5 years and it's 3-4 (to England). Who cares? It means bugger all. Results from last year are hardly relevant, the ones older than even less.

Haha....I like that. I love it when this 3 year thing is rolled out dispite getting hammered last time??

And I love the hypocrisy when people rant about selective citing of results and then choose not to see beyond the last game.

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 05 Nov 2014, 1:45 pm

Why would you go past the last game?

by Bathman_in_London Wed 05 Nov 2014, 1:54 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Why would you go past the last game?

To prove your point of course!

by MichaelT Wed 05 Nov 2014, 1:59 pm

George Carlin wrote:
asoreleftshoulder wrote:I think this article fits nicely alongside the one in the OP

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/power-rankings-for-autumn-internationals-296280.html

There's just something a little bit off about these rankings.
I did a double take at the line
Wales have not beaten any of the big three Southern Hemisphere teams since 2009.
Wales were Six Nations champions twice during that period. Completely bizarre.

Was it not 2008 when Wales last beat one of the big SH three - Australia 21-18 I think.

The article has another mistake in saying South Africa are the first team to beat New Zealand since 2011.

Not mentioned is Ireland only having one victory over a big three team since 2009 - Australia in the 2011 RWC.

It is hard to argue with the results for NH teams, they are quite poor against the SH. England have the best recent record and it is still not great. Four wins since 2009, but that is out of sixteen games if my memory serves me right from 2010 to now.

by **Biltong** Wed 05 Nov 2014, 2:06 pm

It is hard to argue with the results for NH teams, they are quite poor against the SH

The question is why though?

Apart from England between 2000-2003 it has been oneway traffic in the pro era

by Knowsit17 Wed 05 Nov 2014, 2:11 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Why would you go past the last game?

For what particular reason would you not? Apart from if the previous few don't go in your favour and you're simply shying away from acknowledging that inconvenient fact Laugh

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 05 Nov 2014, 2:19 pm

Surley the game you played last has the most relevance on form, state of mind etc....It's not that hard to understand is it?

There's also the pont that hardly any of those players will have taken part in a game 3/4/5 years ago???

by **Biltong** Wed 05 Nov 2014, 2:33 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Surley the game you played last has the most relevance on form, state of mind etc....It's not that hard to understand is it?

There's also the pont that hardly any of those players will have taken part in a game 3/4/5 years ago???

Think about this, prior to our last game where we beat NZ we have lost 5 straight.

When we play again should we use the last game as reference only?

by Knowsit17 Wed 05 Nov 2014, 2:36 pm

Biltong wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:Surley the game you played last has the most relevance on form, state of mind etc....It's not that hard to understand is it?

There's also the pont that hardly any of those players will have taken part in a game 3/4/5 years ago???

Think about this, prior to our last game where we beat NZ we have lost 5 straight.

When we play again should we use the last game as reference only?

That's exactly the sort of thing I was trying to say. Cheers for summarising Bilt

by Knowsit17 Wed 05 Nov 2014, 2:40 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Surley the game you played last has the most relevance on form, state of mind etc....It's not that hard to understand is it?

There's also the pont that hardly any of those players will have taken part in a game 3/4/5 years ago???

Even if it did have "the most relevance", how does that imply that the ones that preceded it are irrelevant?

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 05 Nov 2014, 2:41 pm

Biltong wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:Surley the game you played last has the most relevance on form, state of mind etc....It's not that hard to understand is it?

There's also the pont that hardly any of those players will have taken part in a game 3/4/5 years ago???

Think about this, prior to our last game where we beat NZ we have lost 5 straight.

When we play again should we use the last game as reference only?

No but surely that game has the most relevance? That side will know that they can beat the AB's and will trake confidence from that.

It's also a little different as SA play NZ more often than we do Wales so 4 of those games were played in just over a 12 month period, it's not 3/4 years ago.

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 05 Nov 2014, 2:44 pm

Knowsit17 wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:Surley the game you played last has the most relevance on form, state of mind etc....It's not that hard to understand is it?

There's also the pont that hardly any of those players will have taken part in a game 3/4/5 years ago???

Even if it did have "the most relevance", how does that imply that the ones that preceded it are irrelevant?

The further you go back the less relevant obvioulsy. A result from 3/4 years ago means very little today.

by Knowsit17 Wed 05 Nov 2014, 2:50 pm

Wasn't so much talking about results from 4/5 years or longer ago. I'll remember the 2005 and 2008 games fondly but that doesn't mean I think they're relevant here and now.

I was referring to the more recent context. England winning the last game doesn't mean that, say, the 30-3 drubbing the year before has lost all significance. Lancaster's England and the majority of players in his squad have lost to Wales more often than they've beaten them and the last game alone doesn't cancel that out.

by Cyril Wed 05 Nov 2014, 2:57 pm

The important factor is England are playing at home so the only properly relevant games (in terms of the upcoming World Cup) are the ones at HQ.

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 05 Nov 2014, 2:59 pm

It doesn't cancel it out I agree, but I'd suggest the English players would go into a home encounter against the Welsh confident of a win having beaten them quite easily last time out (hypothetically of course).

Getting beat at home 3 years ago would have little relevance.

by LordDowlais Wed 05 Nov 2014, 3:05 pm

I remember having similar debates with the Irish supporters on here during the last world cup, I was being told things like their provinces are this and that BOD is that, and the last game such and such happened, then we all know how that turned out, why don't we just wait and see what is going on in a years time. Anything could happen to either nation so guessing who will win between Wales and England in a years time is like two bald men fighting over a comb. You do realise that Wales will play England a lot sooner than the world cup dont you ?

by Sponsored content