Rugby World Cup.......What are England's chances?

[johnboywalton]

Not really an avid Rugby fan, but I will always try and make the effort when an English National team are involved in anything (although i am getting extremely disillusioned with the football posers!! ).
I know NZ are favourites, but do we stand any chance? or do any of our "neighbours" stand a better chance

 

[gripitripit]

England should do ok as long as someone else knocks the All Blacks out and avoid Ireland. Now I know England beat Ireland last week but they have trouble beating us (Ireland) when it matters.

 

[patricks148]

England should do ok as long as someone else knocks the All Blacks out and avoid Ireland. Now I know England beat Ireland last week but they have trouble beating us (Ireland) when it matters.

Agree, except the bit about Irland

As long as the french do the England team a favour and knock out the All Black like the last two world cups the final at least beck ons

 

[GB72]

One of the things that I love about rugby is that any of the big teams can beat another on a given day. There have been upsets most years (normally involving someone knocking New Zealand out) and there really are no certainties. I would expect a Semi Final at least but if we peak with the sort of rugby we showed against Australia last year then we can give anybody a game (New Zealand included).

The star of the tournament for England will be Manu Tuilagi.

 

[Deleted member 1418]

If England play as they did in the 6 Nations (bar the Ireland game) then they should make the Semis. With a bit of luck and other results going their way, and if Johnno opts for an expansive game, then they can go all the way to the final. Midfield will be key as IMO the Tindall / Hape partnership isn't really dynamic enough to release the full attacking threat of Cueto, Ashton and Foden. Therefore hope he sticks with Manu.

Up front, England are more than a match for anyone, but need to hit the rucks hard to enable quick ball for the scrum / fly halves.

Looking forward to it.

 

[bladeplayer]

I think england have the players to win it ,, prob down to NZ , AUS , SA, ENG & FRANCE again.. if ye can avoid NZ & FRA i think eng can make final .. think ireland are a bit light to win it , just missing some cohesion at the mo . wouldnt read too much into warm up games as we did a good bit of expereminting .. lot depends on sean o brien & jamie heaslip been fit .. we have a good 15 players (mayb 18/19) but in a tournament like the WC you need a good 25/26.. quarters for us id say .. semi or final for england

 

[gripitripit]

[/QUOTE]

Agree, except the bit about Irland



[/QUOTE]

Facts speak for themselves...!!
Ireland have won 8 out of last 12 competive matches..!

 

[SS2]

Looking forward to a feast of rugby. Can't see past New Zeraland this time; they've blown so many chances (usually to the French) in recent years.

England may make the semis but they are not the team they were in 2003. They don't have enough explosive individual talents that the Tri-Nations teams have in depth. The new boy Manu seems to be a real find.

Ireland may surprise everyone: losing the 4 warm-up games might be a cunning plan in disguise ?

Wales can be entertaining to watch and could do well too. Great backs: Phillips, Hook, Roberts,Halfpenny, wee Shane, Byrne etc

Scotland will be lucky to get out of their group but if we do I'll be happy with that.

As usual with rugby, so much will depend on the standard/consistency of refereeing and injuries. I'd like to see refs being much stronger against professional fouls. Too many warnings and simple penalties, just get the yellow cards out!

 

[Gillespie16]

I think England have a good chance, I think we should get to the semi's atleast, Maybe even the final the 3rd time running.

Come on England!!!!

 

[User20205]

Agree, except the bit about Irland



[/QUOTE]

Facts speak for themselves...!!
Ireland have won 8 out of last 12 competive matches..!

[/QUOTE]

Ireland are on a downward curve, England are going the other way. It's an age thing it happens to us all!

If we beat Scotland in the pool, I think we should play France in the 1/4 final and Australia in the Semi, these games are 50-50. I do quite fancy France to do well tho'.

We could do ok but I don't expect it to be pretty.

 

[toonarmy]

Given that the IRB gave the tournament to NZ instead of where it should have gone, I think it's fair to say that the hosts will be crowned the winners regardless of anything. I fully expect some very curious interpretation of the rules around the ruck, maul and tackle areas, along with the usual blindness to midfield forward passing.

It's also hard to ignore the battle-ready nature of the Tri-nations teams following their tournament as opposed to the patently ring-rusty nature of the NH teams on recent display.

 

[HRC99]

Given that the IRB gave the tournament to NZ instead of where it should have gone, I think it's fair to say that the hosts will be crowned the winners regardless of anything. I fully expect some very curious interpretation of the rules around the ruck, maul and tackle areas, along with the usual blindness to midfield forward passing.

It's also hard to ignore the battle-ready nature of the Tri-nations teams following their tournament as opposed to the patently ring-rusty nature of the NH teams on recent display.

Rubbish. How can you say that a country like New Zealand that eats, sleeps and breathes rugby doesn't deserve a World Cup of their own?

They were denied the chance to co-host the world cup in 2003 after problems over "clean" stadia and now they have the chance to host it all by themselves which is no less than a country as passionate about and devoted to rugby deserves.

The real shame is that the earthquake in Christchurch has denied the city the chance to host any matches. I was delighted to see that the England team are specifically visiting Christchurch which will be great for the city.

New Zealand's hospitality all across the country on the Lions Tour was incredible and I have no doubt they will put on a fantastic world cup.

It will be very interesting to see if the marked differences in refereeing between northern and southern hemisphere referees carry on into this world cup as they have done at the previous two.

England will be praying for a NH referee for every major game as will Ireland, Scotland, Italy and France. Only the Welsh will prefer a SH referee.

The Tri-Nations teams may well be battle-hardened now but this tournament lasts for nearly two months and battle-hardened may well turn into battle-scarred as we move through the tournament. Australia have a great XV but if they lose a few to injury it will be a real struggle.

France can't put NZ out until, at least, the semis as they are in the All Blacks group. In fact, we all ought to be cheering on the ABs as if the French turn them over in the group stages, England will almost certainly face New Zealand in the quarters which will be good-bye and good night.

How will England fare?

Semis probably but, with our pack and JW pulling the strings, no-one will want to face us when it gets to the knock out stages.

 

[User20205]

Rubbish. How can you say that a country like New Zealand that eats, sleeps and breathes rugby doesn't deserve a World Cup of their own?

There is a school of thought that it should have gone to Japan. The IRB are supposed to be all about expanding the game but it is the same old locations that get it. Recent events in both countries aside, Japan was at the time of the bid more suited to hosting the competition. I may be wrong but I don't think NZ have many stadiums with a capacity over 40 000( Maybe just Eden Park)

 

[Aztecs27]

Given that the IRB gave the tournament to NZ instead of where it should have gone, I think it's fair to say that the hosts will be crowned the winners regardless of anything. I fully expect some very curious interpretation of the rules around the ruck, maul and tackle areas, along with the usual blindness to midfield forward passing.

It's also hard to ignore the battle-ready nature of the Tri-nations teams following their tournament as opposed to the patently ring-rusty nature of the NH teams on recent display.

Rubbish. How can you say that a country like New Zealand that eats, sleeps and breathes rugby doesn't deserve a World Cup of their own?

They were denied the chance to co-host the world cup in 2003 after problems over "clean" stadia and now they have the chance to host it all by themselves which is no less than a country as passionate about and devoted to rugby deserves.

The real shame is that the earthquake in Christchurch has denied the city the chance to host any matches. I was delighted to see that the England team are specifically visiting Christchurch which will be great for the city.

New Zealand's hospitality all across the country on the Lions Tour was incredible and I have no doubt they will put on a fantastic world cup.

It will be very interesting to see if the marked differences in refereeing between northern and southern hemisphere referees carry on into this world cup as they have done at the previous two.

England will be praying for a NH referee for every major game as will Ireland, Scotland, Italy and France. Only the Welsh will prefer a SH referee.

The Tri-Nations teams may well be battle-hardened now but this tournament lasts for nearly two months and battle-hardened may well turn into battle-scarred as we move through the tournament. Australia have a great XV but if they lose a few to injury it will be a real struggle.

France can't put NZ out until, at least, the semis as they are in the All Blacks group. In fact, we all ought to be cheering on the ABs as if the French turn them over in the group stages, England will almost certainly face New Zealand in the quarters which will be good-bye and good night.

How will England fare?

Semis probably but, with our pack and JW pulling the strings, no-one will want to face us when it gets to the knock out stages.

Sums up pretty much how I see it.

No-one expected us to rock up at the 03 final and turnover the Aussies in their own back yard. We did so, and did so convincingly. If they can peak at the right time, England have a realistic shot. NZ are the only team I fear at this point.

We've beaten the Aussies recently and South Africa look absolutely terrible as of late.

No one expected England to reach the final at the last WC, we were simply a terrible, terrible team. But they still made it. There's something about the WC that seems to bring the best out of the England team. Hopefully this time round will be no exception, and this time round the strong is much, much stronger.

 

[Monty_Brown]

Apparently New Zealand are replacing the Haka with a group version of the Heimlich Manoeuvre. Better preparation for when they choke apparently

 

[toonarmy]

Rubbish. How can you say that a country like New Zealand that eats, sleeps and breathes rugby doesn't deserve a World Cup of their own?

They were denied the chance to co-host the world cup in 2003 after problems over "clean" stadia and now they have the chance to host it all by themselves which is no less than a country as passionate about and devoted to rugby deserves.

Hardly rubbish when you look at the facts and I never said they don't deserve a World Cup, I said they shouldn't have got this one. You seem to be over-looking the fact that they hosted the first ever World Cup in '87 and become the 1st country to host it more than once.

As someone else has mentioned, this should have gone to Japan. The IRB's remit at the time of selection was about broadening the horizons of the game and taking it to a 'new' country to help with this. NZ were given it in a contentious decision.

One can only assume that RNZ don't feel there are enough Japanese players worth stealing and none of their other favoured haunts in the South Sea islands could host a World Cup, so they may as well host it.

So, your opening hostility aside, the rest of your points are valid and it remains to be seen what impact the injuries ultimately have on the tournament.

The only reason SH teams don't want NH refs, is that they are the only ones likely to penalise them for their multiple infringements at the breakdown and set-piece, which SH refs turn a blind eye to in order to encourage an aesthetically pleasing 'running' game to compete with rugby league, which is much stronger out in Aus & NZ than in the NH.

NH teams don't want SH refs as they don't have the first clue how to handle the scrum or the breakdown and invariably get penalised when they are the victims. Wales are the possible exception due to their current flimsiness up front.

 

[HRC99]

Rubbish. How can you say that a country like New Zealand that eats, sleeps and breathes rugby doesn't deserve a World Cup of their own?

They were denied the chance to co-host the world cup in 2003 after problems over "clean" stadia and now they have the chance to host it all by themselves which is no less than a country as passionate about and devoted to rugby deserves.

Hardly rubbish when you look at the facts and I never said they don't deserve a World Cup, I said they shouldn't have got this one. You seem to be over-looking the fact that they hosted the first ever World Cup in '87 and become the 1st country to host it more than once.

As someone else has mentioned, this should have gone to Japan. The IRB's remit at the time of selection was about broadening the horizons of the game and taking it to a 'new' country to help with this. NZ were given it in a contentious decision.

One can only assume that RNZ don't feel there are enough Japanese players worth stealing and none of their other favoured haunts in the South Sea islands could host a World Cup, so they may as well host it.

So, your opening hostility aside

You must be rather sensitive if you consider the use of the work "rubbish" to constitute hostility!

The 1987 tournament was hosted by New Zealand and Australia which technically makes Australia the first country to have hosted the tournament twice. Although, New Zealand will become the first country to have hosted the final twice in October.

Whether the decision was contentious at the time or not, it was the right one. Japan is so far away from being competitive at rugby that it would render it all but pointless hosting the tournament there.

Hosting the tournament in New Zealand is an infinitely better choice for rugby supporters than Japan and just reward for the country's consuming and abiding love for the game.

The South Sea Islanders playing for the All Blacks are a total red herring in this debate. The overwhelming majority of those that have moved to NZ and played for the All Blacks are economic migrants who have moved for a better lifestyle, education and prospects for their families.

Few countries can claim any kind of moral high ground in this area. England, France, Wales, Scotland, Italy and others have all fielded numerous players with origins far from their adopted country.

I am delighted that New Zealand are hosting the tournament and can't wait for it to get underway.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

England to go home in the quarters!

 

[toonarmy]

Whether the decision was contentious at the time or not, it was the right one. Japan is so far away from being competitive at rugby that it would render it all but pointless hosting the tournament there.

What has the host country's ability to play got to do with their ability to host? Japan did a pretty good job of hosting the football world cup and the Olympics. And it validates the original point - the point of the RWC is to broaden the appeal of the game and taking it to Japan would have seen its appeal sky-rocket in that country and others. Giving it to NZ just sent the message that the big prizes are still for the old boys' club.

Hosting the tournament in New Zealand is an infinitely better choice for rugby supporters than Japan and just reward for the country's consuming and abiding love for the game.

Japan is considerably easier to get around than NZ for international fans. And so what if NZ love the game? Bangladeshis love cricket; should they host the cricket world cup?

The overwhelming majority of those that have moved to NZ and played for the All Blacks are economic migrants who have moved for a better lifestyle, education and prospects for their families.

And who were only allowed entry to the country because of their value to the National team. I can assure you that every SSI native would much rather play for their own country if they could. And if these countries retained their players etc. then perhaps the global game would facilitate the finances into that country, thus meaning they didn't need to leave their homeland and families for economic convenience in the first place.

There is no counter-argument here; the poaching by NZ and Aus of SSI players has inevitably retarded the growth and strength of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga, to the detriment of the global game and the security of the old boys' club. In recent years, other countries have 'adopted' SSI players but NZ & Aus have been doing it for decades and the pattern was established.

I don't resent NZ hosting the World Cup; I resent the IRB giving it to them in direct contradiction to their mission statement. I also resent the NZ players' and fans' attitudes that they seem to think they have a God-given right to own the World Cup.

All that aside, looking forward to it immensely!

 

[thegogg]

Pieman

Just read your comment below..... are you having a laugh as the words Johnno and expansive have never been uttered in the same sentance?

if Johnno opts for an expansive game

Johnson, Wells and Roundtree's expansive game is for the fatties to take the ball standing still off the scrum half at every breakdown and rumble on a yard, again and again and again etc. Boy do I hope England keep John Wells on as your forwards coach especially whilst you have Coeto, Ashton and Foden as your back three, not that I'm biast of course