Does Wayne Barnes have a future as a referee?

Wayne Barnes, in case you've forgotten was the referee in the New Zealand v France quarterfinal at the RWC. He's one of the trio that missed that forward pass.

Since then I've seen him referee twice, two Heineken Cup matches. Last week (Llanelli v Munster) he missed a quick throw in that was illegal since:

1. It hit someone in the crowd
2. Was taken with both feet in the field of play
3. May well have been not straight (forward in fact)

Now, you may argue that's the touch judge's responsibility to call (except the not straight), but the referee also has authority there and they weren't subtle offenses, he should have spotted them. There was also a big forward pass. They didn't as obviously dramatically affect the outcome as in RWC match, but they were big, obvious errors.

Today he stood between the scrum half and fly half for Cardiff near the end of the match, and got in the way of the pass. Happily for Cardiff and Barnes, from the resulting scrum the scrum half found the fly half, who slotted a drop goal, and Cardiff denied Stade a losing bonus point. Now, I don't know about you, but my confidence in Barnes is sufficiently eroded I feel the need to say that, thanks to work committments, I only saw the last 20 minutes of the match, and this was the only big mistake in that time.

I don't think, generally speaking, referees are biased. I do accept that they all make mistakes - they are human and there's an amazing amount going on with 30 players and a funny shaped ball, and a lot of it is "dark arts" like front row offenses. Add to that the fact that actions which are perfectly legal now (reaching over, whilst on your feet to grab the ball in a tackle say) are illegal in much less time than it takes to read this as the tackle turns into a ruck. The tackler must immediately release the tackled player and attempt to roll away, the tackled player must immediately release the ball. But, if there's a pile up straight away (such as at the edge of pick and drive when the tackle basically instantly becomes a ruck) attempt to roll away and immediately become very much a matter of opinion, and the referees opinion and the players', fans' and coaches' opinions are all likely to be different (just not as relevant in the heat of the moment).

So, what I'm trying to say is that I accept that they generally do a good job, to the best of their ability, and under a lot of pressure. BUT (and it's a big but, as well as a bold and italicised one) away from the heat of play most players and coaches accept that the referee will occasionally make a mistake, but by and large they are either little things (Alain Roland getting flattened in the edge of a ruck as has just happened in the background for example) or they're matters of opinion (timing on a tackle/ruck situation) and it's an honest call of the referee's opinion to the best of his ability even if you disagree with it. With Wayne Barnes he is making enough, and big enough, mistakes that I am starting to doubt his ability to manage the game and make the correct calls. He's missed, over his last three games that I've seen, big things that aren't a matter of opinion, they're a matter of easy to see fact and/or simple judgement of his own position so as to see but not interfere in the course of play.

So, let's say, to choose sides with no axe to grind, I'm the new coach of South Africa, and I'm going to play Scotland. I refuse to believe, in this day and age, that players and coaches don't watch video of the referee in action to try and learn his interpretation of the rules. What happens when they also learn that Barnes is prone to a major balls-up or two every match? How do I as a coach handle that? How do the players handle it? What do I do if "Balls-up Barnes" makes his balls-up and costs us the match? Just how long can we give him until this happens again?

A tale of two coaches

Jake White has just coached his national side to win the Rugby World Cup and (with some help from the weighting system it must be said) to the IRB #1 spot. He, like so many other coaches was on a contract that finished after the RWC (in his case at the end of the year I believe) but, to the casual observer's surprise was told he would have to reapply for his post if he wished to carry on in post.

This is the guy that just coached your national team to the peak of the rugby world - when England did the same they KNIGHTED the individual that did it.

Jake White is, however, deeply unpopular at the top levels of South African rugby for some reason. Winning the RWC is not sufficient to save him from the politics of his position. Mad, isn't it?!

In the mean time Graham Henry looks like he will survive as All Blacks coach is he wants to keep the post (he's in is sixties and could well decide to retire regardless) despite leading the All Blacks (with 'help' from a team of officials who had a really bad match) to their first ever departure from the RWC before the semi-final stage and losing their #1 spot. Perhaps that fact that, unlike Paddy O'Brien, the Kiwi public blame (accurately in my opinion) the referee and touch judges rather than the coach helps here - and because the public don't blame him the politicians are shrewd enough not to offer him up as a sacrificial lamb.

It's mad isn't it. The coach you'd expect to be offered a new contract will be, but in some other country. The coach you'd expect to vanish (his predecessor is now coaching a S14 franchise in Australia - brave step for a Kiwi!) seems to be safe. Such is life.

English rugby exposed?

I've just watched the Ospreys thrash the Worcester Warriors at home. I think it was 47-16. It could easily have been more, quite a bit more, one-sided.

The Warriors played a style of rugby that got England (along with some luck of the teams they met) into the RWC final. Not at such a high level, but the same style of rugby. The Ospreys played rugby that I'm moved to describe as "All Black Rugby" - although if I was a few years older I might describe it as "Golden Years Welsh Rugby."

A few broken tackles and the Ospreys exploited the gaps and scored the points. One of the things it does is highlight just what the defensive effort from the England side must have been like, because the missed tackles weren't there. Again the side, as is common for the ABs, that had less of the ball won, and in this case won comfortably. Why? It's not that hard to analyse really. Get the ball, burst a tackle, score. It doesn't take long. Defend when they've got the ball, slow it down in the rucks (not always completely legally, but often legally, the Warriors couldn't clean a ruck out to secure fast ball to save their lives all afternoon). Rinse and repeat until they give you the ball, then score yourselves and they have the ball for longer than you, but you win the match.

There were other things too. The last try, OK, the Warriors were well beaten by then, but it was pretty typical of the ambition. The ball comes from a kick-off. The Ospreys run with the ball. Someone breaks a tackle and runs on, there is a support player there, pass, tackle, next support player. When Lee Byrne trotted over the line with 5 people outside him, just behind that line of three-quarters was a line of forwards. Props, hookers, you name it. That's 80m up field at the end of the match they've just run.

Another good indicator - Shane Williams v Gavin Quinnell. Shane is tiny, amazing footwork, but if he played in an under-16's match he'd not be one of the bigger players. Gavin Quinnell might not be the biggest of the Quinnells, but he's a big, strong man. At one point, within a couple of metres of the try line he breaks off, and the first person to hit him was Shane Williams. He didn't stop him, but he slowed him down and the rest of the team hit Quinnell back, no try. Out on the wing, one on one, same thing. Put the ball in Williams' hands and a bit of sparkling footwork, two players left looking ashamed and a 60m run in for a try.

Mad though it may have been, you can see why the Warriors are bottom of their league. I could see, so clearly, why the final was so bad. A team with no ambition to try and move the ball and score ground out dull win after dull win. Kudos to their defence for letting them be that close, but they also dragged the other side down to their style of play. As soon as that style of play meets a team that is good enough not to get dragged down, it's a landslide, but at least it's fun to watch.

A tale of two finals

We had two finals played today - a big one between SA and England, and smaller one between Auckland and Wellington.

The earlier one, in the Air New Zealand Cup was fast, passionate, pulsating and fun. Auckland ran out deserved winners. Anyone except the most one-eyed Wellingtonian would probably agree.

The later one, the "bigger" of the two in most people's book was dull and grinding. South Africa ran out deserved winners in my opinion. England again looked flat and unimaginative. A fumble caused some excitement by the TMO decided the player was in touch before touching the ball down - a decision I'm pleased I didn't have to make, and far, far harder than, for example, the decision not to award a scrum to New Zealand. South Africa looked to play within themselves, more concerned about not giving opportunities than creating - judging quite rightly as it turned out that England would make enough mistakes to let them win it ugly.

If I was advertising the game to a global audience, I know which one I'd use - and it wouldn't be the big match, it would be the exciting one. It's a shame that the big match came down to this. I'm going to point the finger at Barnes, Kaplan and Spreadbury again. If they hadn't screwed it up in that quarter final, do we really doubt that New Zealand would have been a little stunned by their close victory over France and have knocked the sais out in the semi (still an amazing good result for them). Judging by the two Tri-Nations matches we'd have had a spectacle tonight too. South Africa would know they couldn't have just sat back against the All Blacks - the All Blacks will cut you to ribbons 19 times out of 20 if you do that. They'd have attacked, the All Blacks would have attacked, both sides would have defended too and we'd have had a good game. I'd guess the All Blacks would probably have won - although beating the Bokke three times in a year (home, away and neutral territory) is a big call. Rugby would have had, potentially, a great, pulsating finale to the show - just like 12 years ago in South Africa.

Ah well, it was not to be.

Next week - Guinness Premiership action without significant competition, at least on my television channel selection.

Barnes, Spreadbury and Kaplan cocked it up - it's official

According to Planet Rugby, Paddy O'Brien has admitted that Barnes, Spreadbury and Kaplan messed up at least three calls in the New Zealand v France quarter-final. This is why none of them are involved in the later rounds of matches - big call when Spreaders was awarded the opening match, presumably to set the tone for officiating!

He then, rather bizarrely, goes on to say he doesn't think it affected the outcome.

Just in case you've forgotten, the All Blacks lost by 2 points. France scored 7 from a forward pass that went unnoticed by the officials. France regained the ball illegally in a ruck near their line that went missed by the officials. There was also an offside by France at the ruck that was missed, and in a kickable position. If the forward pass was called, no try. New Zealand win by 5. If the ball wasn't handled in the ruck, possible All Black try, if the penalty was called and kicked, New Zealand win by 1, 3 or 5 depending on what happened next. If the offside was called and kicked, New Zealand win by 1 point. Now, of course, it's possible that McAllister would have missed the kicks, but if ANY of the mistakes hadn't been made there was a good to excellent chance New Zealand would have won. If NONE of them had been made New Zealand would have won quite comfortably if McAllister had kicked straight.

You can, of course, argue that if the All Blacks had played better it wouldn't have mattered, and that's a fair call. But, saying the refereeing decisions didn't affect the outcome is just illogical Paddy.

All of that aside, it's good to see that there is some clear line of "punishment" for screwing up. It's a crying shame it has to happen, coincidentally or not, in such a fashion that the clear favourites for the competition get knocked out of the competition by a team of officials that, purely by coincidence of course, are composed of people from the country they'd be playing next and the country they're most likely to be playing in the final.

Neutral referees

Is it only me that wonders about the selection of referees for the various quarter-finals? I'm not saying (although I still think Wayne Barnes had a shocker and cost the All Blacks the game) that the referees that remained for the quarters, semis and final were the wrong choices, but the way the matches were awarded seems odd.

Test matches have, for pretty good reasons, neutral referees. If France play the All Blacks in a normal week, a referee from England, or anywhere else in the world except France or New Zealand makes sense. But, in a RWC knockout stage, there might be, ought to be, more things to consider.

One half of the "pool" saw England, Australia, France and New Zealand. Whilst I, along with everyone else, assumed that Australia and New Zealand would win, picking the referees for both those matches from any of the other countries represented on the refereeing panel - Ireland, Wales, South Africa for example, and particularly for the second game is surely possible. If you are going to implicitly accept that a referee may be biased in favour of their home country - that's why we have neutrals, to make sure it doesn't happen - then how much of a stretch of the imagination is to ask if Wayne Barnes had a shocker, or if he was biased because, as an Englishman, he believed (rightly or wrongly) that his national side would have an easier time of it against one side than the other? Certainly a cynic might suggest that an England supporter might believe that England have a better chance against the French, who they have beaten this year, than against the All Blacks - and look at what the semi final is going to be!

In the other side, we had South Africa, Fiji, Scotland and Argentina. Referees from New Zealand, Australia, England (as well as Ireland and Wales) would work just fine, with no accusations of bias being leveled after the match.

Last quarter finals

We so nearly had another upset. If Fiji had been a touch luckier either of the two tries they missed could have been scored, both scored and they'd certainly have won. One scored, would the Boks have come back? The luckier team won, and there's various saying around sport about how the better side, the harder working side make themselves luckier. I would say I'm not so sure in this case, I think the Fijian did themselves proud and got unlucky, but these things happen in sport.

Argentina v Scotland went, pretty much, to the form book. The Pumas looked tired though, content to sit back. Against Scotland they can get away with that. A side that only twice looked like scoring a try (and did once) defending a 6 point lead may be nerve-wracking, but relatively safe when your defence has been so dominant for the rest of the game.

We're guaranteed a North v South final now of course. France, will they crash and burn after their heroics against the All Blacks, à la 1999? But, beating the English in France is a different matter to beating the Australians in England. England could do it, of course, but the smart money has to be on France. The other side - you'd have to say the smart money would be on South Africa, but a contest between what will, I think, be the second and fourth placed teams in the IRB rankings (they've not updated as I write) is always going to be a battle. The Boks may have the better 30, but it's about 22 - and Argentina's 22 is pretty damn good. The Boks seem to be breaking props too, NOT a good move against the Pumas.

The Boks, against the USA, then against Fiji have shown a tendency to go AWOL for 20+ minutes. The Argentinians have shown doggedness in defence, an ability to take the points, and moments of flair as well, flair to rival the French. My heart says Argentina will win and set up an Argentina v France rematch. My head says this is possible too, although it does say that the opposite results could occur in both matches and
perhaps my head says France v South Africa is the more likely outcome.

A day of shocks

Well, along with many other far more respected pundits I predicted an all Southern Hemisphere semi-final. Now we're guaranteed a North v South clash in the final.

England v Australia was anything but pretty. It did, however, prove in a game which was quite error-strewn and had a more international scrum-half as referee (someone who's pretty used to standing next to a scrum and seeing what's going on therefore) the Wallabies "massive improvements in the scrum" were shown to be smoke and mirrors AND the scrum became the road by which England's forwards generated self-belief and dogged out the match. It was nice to see the dominant scrum not get whistled off the park for once!

France v New Zealand always had the potential to be a banana skin for the All Blacks, if the French turn up to play, they can beat anyone. Let's hope that same passion pushes them through the next two matches and they stuff the English out of sight and beat the (probably) Boks - although a France v Argentina rematch is plausible and could be very exciting! I've got to say, on this one, I was a bit surprised. France dogged it out with resolute defence, helped a bit by a few shocking refereeing decisions at crucial times, but fair play to France, because they were dogging out, the forward pass from Michalak, the lack of a penalty for taking out the kicker as he chased (especially when compared to the yellow card for MacAllister, which from some angles looked terrible, from others looked like a wonderful dive from Jauzion) were able to make that difference at the end of the day.

I'm going to guess today will be a lot less dramatic, can Fiji stuff the Boks? It's possible, but I doubt it. Can Scotland upset the Argentinians? Ditto. But then, if I was a betting person, I'd have put money on Australia to beat England and (less but still some) on New Zealand to beat France yesterday.

Pool wrap up

So, the pool stages are over.

France rolled Georgia over, no surprises there. They looked good, as, in fairness did Georgia, but, hard though it is to judge, you'd have to say the ABs looked better. AB v France in Cardiff... the forecast is black, and comfortably so, although with France you never know.

Argentina beat Ireland. Sorry, no surprises there. Argentina v Scotland, no chance Scotland.

South Africa beat up the USA, although the USA looked good in patches, and their winger is rapid, it will be interesting to see him in some big contest honing his skills to go with the speed to skin Habana. South Africa improved as the game went along and they settled down to playing their structure and patterns. They'll roll up against Fiji, and the patterns will be just too good. They'd be too good even if Little was fit, but without him, despite that awesome back row, the Boks will be way too good.

Even more strongly on course for the big 4 Southern Hemisphere sides hitting the semis for my money.

You have to wonder, though. Argentina are firmly in that top 4 in the IRB rankings. They don't have a regular big contest - Tri Nations or Six Nations. They've just beaten the top two teams in this year's Six Nations, is everyone scared of them?

Black day

Well, for many reasons. Let's try and take the matches in order.

The All Blacks beat Romania. Not as well as I'd expected, but still convincingly. They'll be a bit worried about how well the Romanian's disrupted the scrum, and/or the scrum half, although the second string 7 and 8 might have contributed to that. Chris Masoe had a good game otherwise, but when Richie MacCaw came on for 20 minutes, normally a powerhouse for the whole 80 after all, god did he look spectacular.

There were quite a few mistakes, but AB rugby often has mistakes. It's odd for a side that does so well from mistakes/turn overs that they're relatively happy to make them and give the ball up. Says something for their (justified) confidence in their defence, and ability to get the ball back. Thorne, for all he had a good game, is clearly there as a utility player, across blind-side and lock. Romania might not be the best team in the world, but at line out time he looked rather anonymous. That said, having him as an extra tackler around the park was pretty positive, but it's a balance thing. You'd expect the ABs to threaten the Romanian line out, and they didn't really, with two of Jack, Williams and Robertson you'd have thought they would, even as they lost the mobility around the park.

Australia looked out of shape. Perhaps the rain helped, but they sputtered and stuttered. OK it was only a pool game and quite a few second choice folks in key places, but it was still not great. I can't see them playing that badly next week, but if they do, England could win. Particularly problematic, their scrum creaked against Canada. Against CANADA, when the English scrum stood up well against the Boks, could be a disaster in the making. Mind you, the aussie line out ruled.

Kudos to Fiji. Being Welsh, it hurts, and there are a number of places we should have done better, but Fiji played a blinder, and at least we went out in a great game rather than in a damp squib. Will Gareth go? Apparently not without being pushed. He asked to be judged on his RWC performance - the judgement? Not good enough. Sure, being a manager/coach it's not all his fault, but the combinations, selection choices and style of play in broad terms, if not every choice on the field are his. Why does he want Wales to play structured power rugby, it's not really what they've ever done, why try to change it? Why choose Hook and Shane Williams if you do? Wales won the grand slam on pace, passion and flair. Tempering that a little isn't necessarily a bad thing, adding a plan B, but it has looked more and more like he wants to knock it out of Welsh rugby rather than add an alternative. Sorry, I'd be pushing if I was the WRU.

Scotland and Italy was close, closer than I'd expected actually. You'd have to say the better team won, even if it was a dull, grinding, bad tempered game. A game where ill discipline really made the difference - shades of England v France in years gone by. I'm still putting my money on 4 Southern Hemisphere semi finalists, which means Argentina get through as group winners (I think they'll win, Ireland have lost it too much), and Argentina will just chew up and spit out the Scots on today's evidence. They won't be as likely to give away silly penalties, and they will be more able to threaten with a variety of plans than poor old "big boot and nothing else" Pez. Even Rob Andrew at the height of 10-man rugby showed more option taking than Pez.

Tomorrow - only one match that matters isn't there?

France really ought to rack up the 5 points, South Africa's first choice team, ditto, and both will do so with time to spare. Ireland v Argentina? A team flying high, full of confidence and a team that looks fragile and out of sorts? Teams that are actually close on the world rankings too? Look how close Tonga came, how well Fiji did too. Confidence works wonders, and Ireland don't have it, unless Argentina really blow it early to hand it back to the Irish, ignominy awaits.

England flatter to deceive

So England won. Shame.

If only that pass that lead to Sackey's second had gone to a Tongan hand, you have to wonder how different it would have been. A try then, to Tonga - not a certainty, but reasonably likely you'd have thought, and 17-14 at half time and you wonder just how different it would have been.

As the commentators said, there was a period in the second half where England lost shape, lost self-belief, and if they hadn't had that lead, and if Tonga hadn't had a couple of passes go to ground, they'd have still been in trouble. If they'd been behind when that hit, who knows?!

Whichever side won was going to struggle against the Aussies, lets be honest. Australia will be licking their lips after that display from England. They're vulnerable up the middle, they're moderately vulnerable at the line out (and Tonga aren't great there in all fairness), their scrum didn't really dominate at the times you'd expect it to - Gregan will not fall to the soft touches that Gomersall managed to inflict which did the most damage to the Tongan scrum, Mortlock and whoever (Giteau?) will hammer the 10, 12, 13 channel that looked so vulnerable, and if it's bulked up by Farrell, they'll run past him at speed.

However, Tonga should go home full of pride. A country with the population of a smallish town in England played well and made the English sweat and struggle. They struggled at times with precision, but they actually played far more attractive rugby for most of the time, and their commitment to the cause certainly can't be doubted. The mainstream media are harping on about a high tackle. It was high, but it wasn't sickening, as I've seen it referred to - you have to wonder if it was Lewis Moody's mum writing the piece. The damage that left him in a heap on the floor was because, to my eyes, Moody ducked his head into the tackler's shoulder at speed. The arms were wrapping, and one wrapped high. A penalty, certainly, but anything more, no way. You see far worse tackles than that in most games without cards, sometimes without penalties even. It was made to look worse because Moody tried hard to knock himself out for the second time in the game, not because it was a highly dangerous tackle, no more than most tackles that are just over the shoulders anyway. Dangerous by law, but not full of malice.

Let's hope, whatever the political fun and games with the IRB, that Tonga build on this and come back next time better yet. England, don't feel to comfortable. You avoided one embarrassment, the first defending champions to fail to get out of the pool stages. Chances of going past Australia - cat in hell's got better odds.

Great matches

One of the things I love about watching rugby is the number of ways you can get a good, enjoyable match to watch.

No-one would call the All-Blacks v Portugal (108-13 or so remember) a contest. In fact to make it a contest how low down the New Zealand age tree would you go? I'd certainly put money on the NZ under-21's, probably on the under-19's. Would the under-17's be a fair match? That's not to insult the Portuguese team, they're mainly amateurs playing against the most rugby mad country and one you'd have to say has the best development structures in place.

But, it was a good match, for skill and for passion.

Being Welsh, living in England, South Africa v England (36-0) was a great match to watch. Anyone kicking it to the sais is good of course, but seeing them clueless, and a highly skilled display from the Bokke was good, and would have been good against many opponents.

Then we come to today's two games in the world cup. Most of the teams in the ANZ Cup would have won, comfortably, today. The standard of Japanese, Portuguese, Romanian and Canadian rugby just isn't that high. No shame on them, and they're mostly improving, but getting the time, resources and so on to play the game is hard work in countries where they're fourth, fifth or sixth sports. But the games were compelling to watch. Would brave Portugal hold out the bully-boys Romania? No. (Not trying to say that Romania cheated either, but they won by grinding forward play and were just bigger and stronger there.) Who would win between Japan and Canada? (No one it turns out, 12-all draw with the final kick of the game, 5 minutes into time added on sealing the draw for Japan.)

Great to watch because of passion and of the fact they were both good, close contests.

When will we see their likes again? (Sorry Scotland, too good a line to pass up.) Well, if the Irish remember how to play, maybe Ireland v Argentina. Maybe Tonga v England, it's got the makings of it, but if England start well, maybe not.

France v New Zealand? Probably. Otherwise, not until the semi-finals to be honest. But, Australia v England (if that comes to pass, still not sure it will) will have that rivalry, and revenge for 4 years ago - that will be watchable if not a contest.

France v New Zealand will be a match that everyone will watch. Will the ABs cope with the decent opposition? Will France show up? Will they show up rather better than this time last year?

South Africa v Wales - if Wales show adventure and spirit it will be a great game, but if not, well meh. Even being Welsh, SA ought to win, sadly.

That leaves Argentina v Scotland... I'm still thinking rather 1-sided for the Southern Hemisphere side.

Let's hope the organisers decide to let the small teams carry on. The crowds tonight, in France, were better than for Scotland (seconds) v NZ at Murrayfield. If the Scots can't show up (on or off the pitch) at home, but the minnows can get massive support and play such compelling games, let's have more of them!

Big three all stutter

It seems odd to describe a 40-0 and a 55-12 scoreline as poor, but in all honesty they were. The All Blacks and Australia will both look at the matches and wonder why the scores were not far more one-sided.

The All Blacks could easily, should even, have scored another 6 or more tries. Australia should have scored 3 or 4 more, and not conceded at least one of the two that they did. South Africa, of course, came even closer to the brink.

It would be easy to start screaming "choker" at this point, and I'm sure the coaches will have things to say, but I wonder if the format of "7 important games in a row" is actually too much. In that time the odd poor game is going to sneak in. Will having them now, when there's still a match before the quarter-finals will give the coaches a sneaky sigh of relief, because they've got a stick as well as a carrot and they'll be thinking they've got the "bad game" out of their system.

You'd have to say that, despite the stutters, all three of these sides will win their quarter-finals, probably at a canter. They'll play better against each other than against their lesser rivals when in the semi's too, I'm sure. So, unlike France, not a disaster, but still an odd weekend.

Not so super Saturday

So, the long Saturday is finally over.

Argentina kicked into gear and racked up 60+ against Namibia. Even more than yesterday it's a case of "Goodbye Ireland" and a quarter-final line up that says France v All Blacks, Argentina v (probably Scotland).

England sort of clicked into gear. Johnny was back and had a pretty good game, made easier because Gomersall kicked the English forwards into gear in a way Perry just never managed. But, Samoa, who have rather flattered to deceive this time around, pushed them close. Tonga, who beat Samoa, can still win and kick the English out, and probably will to be honest. There is still an impression that England are blustering rather than genuinely confident whilst Tonga will be full of fire and self belief. An early score by Tonga and England will fall apart. An early score the other way, and Tonga will fight. If it's close near the end, Tonga will have the belief to win.

Why are Tonga so positive? Well, they faced the South African second stringers and were winning. White sent on all 7 of the senior squad to bolster things, which they did, but Tonga still fought back, and but for a bounce of the rugby ball going right instead of left could have won at the end. It made for a great game, a real classic, and if it didn't boost Tonga's self-belief nothing will.

It's cemented for me an All-Black win I think. I know that matches in the knock-out stages can swing on silly things and there's no second chances, so it's not a certainty, but when you look at the side against Portugal for example, supposedly New Zealand's second stringers, they were smooth, efficient and shone from 1-15. Some of the SA second stringers did, Skinstad had a great game for example, and deserved his try, even if it denied Tonga the win, but by and large they looked appreciably less good than their big team counterparts. Still probably a top 10 in the world team, but not #2, whereas the AB's "second team" still looks like #1 in the world.

Ireland going home early

There, I've said it.

Ireland were woeful. France didn't play with absolute abandon, but never looked like losing, not in a million years. From 10 years ago it's odd to say that France were the better disciplined team, but they were all round. The little things, like knocks-on, the big things, like giving away penalties, even the ability to apply their game plan, which is less noticeable but still an expression of discipline, all were on the French side.

It wasn't perfect - Chabal isn't a natural lock, but can be an impact player as a lock I suspect, he's a better Number 8, but is he really better than Bonnaire? That's a hard call.

Ireland looked lost and bereft of plans, talent and self belief. Eddie O'Sullivan must be really pleased he signed his new 4 year contract already. It probably wouldn't be on the table still if he hadn't signed it. I wonder how long he'll actually keep the coaching post for?

England and Ireland probably both need to change coaches. Brian Ashton isn't getting the team to play well - whether that's also because he's not coaching what he truly believes or not I don't know, but England's talent isn't performing for him, and they still do have some talented players, even if they left loads of others behind, and the same is true of O'Sullivan. In O'Sullivan's case it's more surprising. Ashton inherited a team in disarray and managed to do a papering over the cracks exercise. The World Cup has exposed the cracks, and probably unfairly he won't get the next 4 years to try and fix them. But Ireland have looked like real potential semi-finalists, even finalists over the last 18 months or so, until they hit the big stage. France certainly choked, but have recovered (probably too late, but recovered some dignity and pride at least). Ireland have just choked and aren't showing signs of recovery. It's pretty much too late for them, except to spoil Argentina's party. Frankly, I don't think they can, not unless there's a miracle.

(some of the) Big NH sides starting to fire

France fired against Namibia last weekend, Wales fired against Japan last night.

In a normal year, a normal world cup, this wouldn't be news. But Ireland and England have failed to fire, Italy and Scotland have looked OK. Wales even fired, in patches, against Australia, the ONLY Northern Hemisphere side to shine against significant opposition so far, even if too little, too late.

Can Ireland produce such a shocking performance again? Well, yes - remember squeaking home over Georgia followed a lack-lustre performance against Namibia, albeit one with a bonus point win. Something is stopping the men from the Emerald Isle firing as a unit. France could always freeze again, but you've got to say that this game is theirs to lose, before the start, rather than Ireland's to win.

Can England produce a performance against Samoa? On paper England ought to win. They're going to have a new 9, 10, 12, 13 combination though, and unless England sort themselves out it could be a very dour match in which you'd have to say Samoan passion, self-belief and stung warrior pride after last week could do the job. England might dominate possession, but we've seen the All Blacks, and (sadly) Georgia prove that the team that dominates possession and territory doesn't necessarily win.

Don't believe me, look at the stats - the ABs often win matches with less than 50% of territory and possession - scoring clinically from turn overs lets you do that, because they have the ball for several phases until you turn them over, and you score. Very fast, and often long range. The stats show the other team apparently in the ascendancy. I'd have to say that of the two sides, I'd believe both that Samoa will make more turn over ball, and they're far more likely to score from it.

Scotland won't have a chance to shine - they're playing the ABs, but, finally two of the Northern Hemisphere sides have really shown they can do it, and do it well.

My predictions:

England to still crash out, I think Samoa and maybe Tonga can both do it over this England side and see them slide right down the world rankings. I know which side I'm rooting for, and humiliation of being the first defending champions to fail to get out of the pool stages, excellent!

France to beat Ireland. Argentina too. France then lose to the ABs, Argentina beat... probably Scotland. Neither side looks that good, but Scotland look OK, Italy are stuttering.

Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and South Africa to be the semi-finals. The biggest doubt there, oddly (and with my heart perhaps), South Africa. If Wales forget structured rugby and try to take the Bokke on they'll probably lose. If they try to front up in a physical confrontation they'll lose for sure. Charvis, Popham and Martin Williams can feed ball to the backs, probably enough against South Africa still, and if Wales let their backs sparkle and run riot, they can do it. It's high risk, but, much though I'd love it not to be true, if Wales play that way they could get stuffed (against the number 2 side and joint RWC favourites that's not a disaster though), but they could produce an upset, and it's the only way they can do it.

Radical ideas for the RWC for 2011 and beyond

Don't reduce the size of the contest, increase it. 24 teams, 4 groups of 6...

OK, that's not exactly radical. But, then, borrow an idea from sevens, and have the cup, plus a shield and plate competition.

Cup quarter-finals drawn more or less as shown, shield from those that finish 3rd and 4th, plate from those that finish 5th and 6th.

We, the fans, get more rugby (hooray). We still have possibilities of matches like Ireland v Georgia providing scares and upsets. Matches like England v Samoa keep their significance, but are repeated elsewhere. We still have the possibility of such good natured mismatches as NZ v Portugal - and whilst it was a mismatch, it was fun to watch.

And, at the end of the time, every team plays a knockout match (at least one) against a side that's roughly, in this month or two of the 4 year cycle, on a similar level with them. This would make matches like Georgia v Namibia, which before the tournament looked like an empty contest except to the players, suddenly rampant with meaning, just as much meaning as Wales v Australia yesterday.

The other alternative, move to two 16-strong contests - which gives us even more matches! But, let the middle-16 (the 8 that don't make the cup quarter-finals and the 8 that would make the tier-2 quarter-finals) play a 16-strong knockout format. Seeding the teams that finished top of the lower tier 1-8, and the teams that finished bottom of the upper tier as 9-16, and apply the tennis "round of 16" structure to the games: 1 v 16, 2 v 15 etc.

Celtic nation woes

Wales and Ireland played today. One side won, the other lost.

The side that lost played poorly for half a match, and well, brilliantly in patches, for the other half. If they'd managed to string the whole 80 minutes together, they could have won. As it is, Wales losing to Australia is hugely disappointing, but not a disaster. Everyone knows what they need to do in the quarter-finals against South Africa, and they played well enough that it's pretty clear they will be there. Whether they can do it or not is another matter, but they know what they need to do, and they've proved, against top flight opposition, they can do it in patches. Credit to Australia, they do better in the RWC than at other times, and it showed again. Their scrum, however, was atrocious, against even bigger scrummaging packs than Wales (who are pretty good and looked good today) they'll get taken apart there one can't help but feel. Of course England, Tonga or Samoa won't complain, and probably, on recent showing won't even challenge them there.

The side that won played poorly for the whole match, and must be relieved that they were playing Georgia rather than Argentina or France. They'd have been thumped, deservedly, off the pitch by a fitter team. As it was, there was a held-up ball over the try line that the video referee couldn't see grounded (and almost certainly wasn't in fairness) that would have handed out a shock defeat. Not a surprise like Argentina beating France, a shock, a genuine shock. Federer knocked out in the first round of a grand slam kind of shock. The luck of the Irish was with them tonight - two of the three attempted drop goals by the Georgians were close, if they'd gone the other side of the uprights, Ireland would have lost by two points.

My earlier post about the minnows needs revisiting. Georgian probably won't make a 16-strong World Cup if that's what the IRB in it's "wisdom" decides for the next one. Shame, stupid, let's hope they nobble the Irish vote and look at this match and decide the minnows really do have something to add. And bad luck Georgia. To this neutral, you looked the better side throughout. If Ireland don't improve in leaps and bounds, France, yes France, Ireland were that bad, and Argentina will be facing the All Blacks and the runners up from pool C.

Would you really bet against all Southern Hemisphere semi-finalists? England won't get through, quite possibly not to the quarter-finals, but certainly not out of them, so that gives us the Aussies. Wales could beat South Africa, but the odds are against it. France v All Blacks, only one winner you'd say, and Argentina should beat Scotland or Italy quite comfortably in France.

It just might be worth a penny or two. I wonder what the odds are?!

Keeping the minnows

The All Blacks weren't as clinical as you might expect in dispatching Portugal 108-13. It sounds ironic saying that, but 10 of those points were pretty avoidable, and there were a few missed passes and things, so it could easily have been closer to 150-3. Nevertheless, with the exception of an injury to Mils Muliaina, there were no injury worries on either side, and, you know what, it was a fun match to watch.

The crowd got behind Portugal, the players all seemed to enjoy it, and no-one was injured severely. There are rumours that the IRB is thinking of cutting the next World Cup to 16 teams. To be honest, I have to ask why?

The All Blacks, Boks, Australians etc. whoever the powerhouses are at the next World Cup will destroy the 16th placed team as thoroughly as the All Blacks just took the 22nd placed team to the cleaners. It's not like it will make for less one-sided matches, save it will make for less matches. But, we'd lose Fiji v Japan, one of the closest and most gripping matches of the world cup so far. We'd lose the spectacle and joy of the AB v Portugal that we've just seen. We might even miss out on Italy v Romania. Not an edifying match, but hard for a old rugby fan like me not to watch, it was tense and close, as well as brutal and ugly.

We saw the Boks sweep England aside. The scoreline was less obviously one-sided, but Portugal scored more against the best side in the world than England, traditionally a powerhouse side, managed against the 3rd placed side. It was also nice to see a match where the players, and the fans, all looked like they were having fun. RWC is a serious thing, perhaps the old farts at the top of the IRB want it all to be deadly serious, but as pure entertainment for the masses, this and Fiji v Japan would be the matches I'd show - spirited, fun, highly skilled in parts for this one, and matches they don't want us to see next time. Shame on you, IRB.

Oh, congratulations to both the All Blacks, who did, mostly, what they had to do, what everyone knew they would do, but did it with style, poise and a smile; and to Portugal who turned up, had fun, had a go and made what could have been a sterile whitewash, like Australia v Japan, into a spectacle.

The Minnows, including England

Wednesday saw the last of the teams enter the contest. Realistically none of the teams playing for the first time stand a chance of winning progressing out of the pool stages, Italy are the possible exceptions to that.

But, today the death of English Rugby was finally kicked home. 36-0! Although there wasn't a try bonus point, that's a bigger margin than England managed to beat the USA by, both points conceded, and points scored were for the losing side in this match than the earlier one.

England had one player on the pitch that looked like he had a clue. When he left with a hamstring injury, Jason Robinson quite rightly got a standing ovation, not least as a farewell to a great servant of both versions of the game. He might be back, but almost certainly not in time for Samoa, and if the men in blue get any sniff of the ball, they have the pace, invention and desire to beat the English, just because the English won't score points. They failed to sparkle against the USA, they failed to even threaten against the Boks.

England might not, technically, be out of it yet. If they lose to Samoa they will be, for sure. But, whichever side wins at the Millennium Stadium tomorrow, Wales (I hope) or Australia (my head says more likely, they tend to peak in World Cups) will take enough from the result to beat the English in the next round anyway.

Pack up guys in white, your days as World Champions are counting down, and less than 20.

Citing madness

The citing system in rugby matches is under criticism again, quite rightly IMO.

If you're reading this, you probably know the system is there to pick up dangerous play and serious infringements, primarily, but not solely (despite its initial statement of use), those missed by the referee. Nowadays it includes dangerous play felt not to be suitably punished at the time.

Saturday produced a trip (2 weeks), a number of high tackles (variably dealt with between nothing and 4 weeks). Brian Lima's hit on Pretorius was, frankly, shocking, even for "The Chiropractor" it looked high and dangerous. He may have escaped citing because he knocked himself out, but it's hard to see why he wasn't cited and banned.

Vickery's trip - he alleges was instinctive and not cynical. I'm unconvinced, lashing out with a foot is always hard to do, and he lashed out a long way, it's not like a trailing leg, only got him 2 weeks. Trips, particular kick-trips like that one, are good ways to break legs, arms and potentially head injuries. By their very nature they're unexpected and throw you off balance. You'd hope an international rugby player is sufficiently co-ordinated to land well, but it's not always easy when you running at full pelt and thrown so badly off balance so unexpectedly.

Burger's suspension is outrageous. I think the penalty was probably right - hitting people in the head is something we need to strongly discourage, but 4 weeks would be about right for someone that had jumped in to smack someone in the head, watching the replay it still looks to me like Burger leapt for the ball and missed - clumsy, but not penalisable. He carried through - it's hard to shift momentum when you're in the air after all, and hit the Samoan in the head. Could he have missed the head? Probably (not certainly, and if he'd lowered his arm to hit him in the chest if possible it would still have been hitting a man in the air), but, that "probably could have missed the head" warrants a penalty to my mind.

What is going on with the system? I have moderately little sympathy with "MacCaw gets away with murder" but I certainly have some sympathy that it appears Burger has been harshly treated, and it often seems the Bok players are harshly treated.

Dissing Argentina

Why is everyone still so shocked by Argentina's success?

In what other sport is a talking point in tones of shock for days and days when the team in 6th place plays the team in 4th and comes up with a hard fought win?

Sure, you'd expect the higher placed team to win, especially when playing at home, that's why they're more highly ranked after all, but is it really a resounding shock? It does make the exclusion of Argentina from both the big annual competitions seem increasingly like prejudice. I understand it can take a while to work a new team in to the schedules - I'm not sure how far ahead they're planned out, but just continuously saying "No" is starting to sound like fear.

To finish off, kudos to the Georgians for fronting up so well. Argentina looked a bit tired - playing France on Friday then Georgia today was always going to be hard work, you have to wonder why the team was rotated more - the All Blacks have basically shifted just about everyone around for this weekend, but Loffreda must be relatively happy, despite the fatigue and the hard confrontation his team racked up the bonus point, a decent points difference and the like. Beat Ireland - a team they're now ahead of in the world rankings after all, so we might expect a win (without being shocked if they don't) - and they're looking at a likely semi-final match against South Africa, pretty good result really!

Happy Coaches league

This is purely for fun... but it's my ranking of the happiness of coaches in contests. It's not necessarily the same as who will win the various contests, you can be happy for various reasons.

1. Henry - of course.
2. Connelly - Losing Gerrard for Shepherd, not as bad as some loses could have been (Larkham say).
3. White - losing de Villiers seems bigger than losing Gerrard to me. A regular starting centre v a replacement winger?
4. Loffreda - only this low because the other Southern Hemisphere nations all did so well.
5. Berbizier - losing to New Zealand, not a disaster. Played with spirit, will challenge the Scots.
6. Jenkins - his team came from behind, which they shouldn't have had to, but played well in patches.

After that, does it matter that much? The bottom might be interesting:
19th place - Laporte. Shocking performance with freezing, but gives him something to build from, and removes expectation from the side... always good for France!
20th place - Brian Ashton. What positives can he try to manufacture from the pile of manure that was England's performance. Even Laporte is happier.

Rugby World Cup, weekend 1

So, we've had the opening round of matches.

New Zealand, no surprises to me, proved those who said "They've had no consequence games, they'll be rusty" wrong with a very clinical outing, killing the Italians in every respect. I'd be a happy Graeme Henry today.

Argentina rocked the rugby world. That's not meant to suggest that they're a bad side, but France had played like real challengers in the warm-up matches, Argentina hadn't played that well. On Friday night, the roles were reversed. Les Bleus froze under pressure and expectation, the Pumas played with heart and soul and conviction, and thoroughly deserved their win.

Of the home nations, I'd rather be Welsh (which I am) than anything else. Why? Well Wales varied between mediocre and good, and played a team which can surprise bigger sides in the right sort of way. They weathered, albeit with more damage than we'd like the storm at the start of each half, and then struck, and struck, and struck to kill them off when that initial roar died back.

Ireland looked old and flat. They won, but please... with the greatest of respect to Namibia, they're not exactly dangerous. Ireland v Argentina and Ireland v France could both be even more fascinating than anyone thought in "the group of death." Before the tournament I'd have said France and Ireland to qualify, in that order. Argentina unlucky to be in that group rather than say in the group with Australia instead of Wales. Now, I just don't know. I guess it depends on how France do against Ireland. They might show up worked up and demolish them and go through. I suspect they'll be fragile though, and if Ireland start well France could easily go out in the pool stages.

Scotland, playing Portugal looked a bit stunned and out of sorts. They played between badly and mediocre, not what you want in a first game. Still, I'd rather be Scots that English - England were shocking against the USA. They failed to get a bonus point, against a side that many places below you in the rankings, it's unforgivable.

Australia? Don't know. Japan, with the best will in the world, didn't pose any sort of threat. Australia v Wales will be interesting, the only real challenge for them in the pool stages you'd say. After New Zealand v Italy, it remains to be seen how much of one, although recent matches between the two in Wales (and the first test in Australia) have all been contests, which might bode well.

South Africa - did a good job against Samoa, but losing a centre, particularly such a good one, who can guess.