Team of the tournament

It's very tempting, from 1-15 to put All Blacks' in here. They did, after all, win so as a team they were the best.

But after a close semi-final, close 3-4th play-off and close final it's pretty clear that's not fair to a lot of class players.

As usual for me, I'm going to look for what I consider to be consistency through the tournament wherever possible, and cluster players by groups to some extent.

Front Row:

This is an almost impossible choice. How many sides wouldn't welcome Woodcock, Mealamu, Franks, Poux, Servat and Mas, Jones and Jenkins (at least) into their front row. Add to this, those first choice players were occasionally beaten in a game by their opponents, but occasionally beat them too. Even Australia showed up in the 3/4 play off.

Woodcock gets the nod for me, that try being the icing on the cake. Jenkins on the other side - rarely beaten in the tight, plus tackling and carrying all around the park. Mealamu just edges Servat. Mas and Franks unlucky to lose out, and although Jones didn't make the cut, Wales certainly need him.

Second Row:

Again a hard choice. Chateris made Wales have a line out again. The other Welsh locks didn't let their side down, but seemed to rotate a bit too much for consideration. Nallet always looked good. Thorn and Whitelock started every match and never looked bad. Horwill led Australia well and Sharpe looked good when he played.

I'm going to give the nod here to Thorn and Whitelock. The AB line out never creaked when the ball was near them, and they stole ball from everyone.

Back Row:

An embarrassment of riches here. Warburton, Pocock, McCaw, Dusatoir all competing for one place. Harinordoqui, Read and Faletau for another, Lydiate and Kaino for the third.

McCaw gets one berth. He beat Pocock round the park in that semi while it was close with Dusatoir, more consistent through the whole tournament gets him the nod. Warburton loses out for a nod here thank's the Alain Rolland. But he (and Brussow) will be fighting Ritchie's crown over the next few years. Faletau just gets the nod at 8. He looked too good against France with and without Warburton to lose it to Harinordiqui, Read missed too many matches at the beginning, although he was probably the 8 of the knock-out stages. Kaino at blind-side. He was immense throughout the tournament.

Scrum-half:

Weepu wins here. All the others deserve a consideration - Yachvilli, Phillips and Genia would grace almost any team. Weepu gets it for me for taking the rotating junior 10's and making it work for them and the All Blacks. Yes, his kicking was off in the final, Yachvilli kicked well for France. Genia's movement of the ball was largely good. Philips certainly impressed. But Weepu picked up the potentially shattered hopes of a nation watching Carter collapse in pain, put them back together and dragged his various mates over the line.

Number 10:

Who to choose here? No one finished with their first choice. Cooper played most games, but looked really subdued in two critical games - bad against SA and NZ. Carter is still the class player. Cruden looked good in his 2 matches, but only played 2. Parra stood up in a relatively unfamiliar position and looked OK until the final. Priestland looked good, and Wales certainly missed him.

Priestland it is. He played more than any of them except Cooper and didn't have a bad game while he played. I think Carter and Cruden in years to come will be a devastating 1-2 for NZ, and not sure that Dan will be the man come 2015 any longer, but Priestland has had a great introduction on the biggest stage.

12 and 13:

Australia struggled to keep their centres playing too much for any to get onto the list when everyone else had their first choice play throughout. Sorry to you all - especially Barnes who probably deserved more time. Smith or Davis in one slot; Roberts, Rougerie or Nonu in the other? Before the tournament I would have said SBW would be on the list, but he didn't play enough, although he looked good when he did.

Roberts is an easy shout to my mind. He always looked dangerous, he made holes for others to exploit and put them through them reliably. Nonu had a quiet game or two, Rougerie to quiet in the pool stages.

Davis or Smith is harder. They both looked solid in all parts of their game, doing what was asked of them. Davis just edges it because he seemed to look more dangerous on attack - how much of this was playing outside Roberts I'm not sure but it's enough for me.

Back three:

Because they're so often interchangeable these days I'm picking all three as a group.

Fun and games here. Clerc - joint top try scorer? Williams who attracted attention every time he touched the ball and still scored some nice tries? Jane who looked so awesome under the high balls? Kahui who played there a lot and never looked bad despite playing out of position? North? Halfpenny? Dagg - who more or less kept Muliaina out of the XV when fit? O'Connor can't be overlooked either, not just for his kicking. Australia suffered a bit here with the poor form of their forwards and Cooper, the wings seemed too quiet, full back changed too much with centres getting crocked.

Clerc, Jane and Dagg. Clerc for the attacking edge just beats Williams and North. Jane for his amazing defence under the high ball, around the park and his ability to attack from there. Dagg... beating out Muliaina is no mean feat. He just edges Halfpenny despite the skill and long range kicking the latter brings.

So there we go.

9 All Blacks, 5 Welshmen and a Frenchman. A few Aussies that can consider themselves unlucky, injuries and the bad form of others pulled them down a bit.

Wales will be the side to beat come the 6N it appears...

Whiney, whingey England

Over the last few days we've had a multitude of reports from senior England players (or soon-to-be-ex England players) complaining about everything from "The media were out to get us" to "They don't understand what we were doing, the reporting isn't fair."

Let's be clear here - as a rugby fan I know and accept that rugby players drink. I've seen rugby players royally pissed, rolled onto the team bus to get home at the end of a tournament and the like. It's not necessarily right, smart or anything else, but it happens. It's not really a story.

However, out on the lash and seemingly really drunk in the middle of a tournament - that's news. It was news, even over here, that Cory Jane and Israel Dagg were 'so drunk they were slurring' in the middle of the tournament. Particularly for Jane who was meant to be playing in a couple of days. OK, the players out in Queenstown add to that the spice of Tindall, recently married, with an old flame which may have made it more of a splash. But although both management teams were fairly low-key, one group said "Rugby players drink beer, shock!" and dismissed it entirely. The other group said "We've told them we're not happy. Jane better play a blinder on Saturday." The behaviour of one group was possibly more newsworthy, but the indication that the management team had taken some action - however minor - defused the second incident much more efficiently.

Then there's the harassment of the chambermaid, the apology and the like. If they were 18 year olds on tour it might be understandable. Harassing and scaring someone is not acceptable ever but a crowd of young adults on tour together - you can understand that although it's clearly not right, they might go too far with something that's meant to be joking around. By the time they're in their 20's, professional sportsmen and representing their country - it's much harder to understand. I understand men will tease women. Most women understand it will happen too - whether or not they enjoy it, think it's right or otherwise, they understand it happens. And most of them quite reasonably expect that when they show signs of distress it stops. Most men seem to honour that. But not these three.

And then the "Manu overboard" situation. If that had been the only incident, it would probably have been laughed off by everyone except the NZ Police. But at the end of the tour they've had, what were his mates thinking putting him up to it? What was he thinking accepting? Did they check in their brains on arrival?

And maybe they did. Cueto thinks the criticism of England's play was unfair. Which part I wonder? The range of incisive, attacking runners? You know, the ones that didn't show up against Argentina, Scotland or France. Matches where even England fans consider England were lucky to get 2 from 3 wins. The oddness of a selection in the last match where Flood was played in an unfamiliar position (at both club and international level), with an inexperienced player outside him, and the player inside who didn't have a great tournament having to get used to another new partner. Two players not renowned for their defence - one through inexperience and one through unfamiliarity with the role and being small - playing in the centres who amongst their other roles include the defensive leader of the team. Face it, France didn't play well for most of that match - although that one try was pretty damn good - they played an OK match. Just England were bad. Even their moments of luck, that brought them through against the other quality sides they played, weren't enough to let them sneak another win. And this is unreasonable?

Someone asked me the other day if Shaun Edwards would be part of the England set-up. I think he'll stay in Wales. I hope he does in fact. Why would anyone move to England? The players, senior, intermediate and junior seem to be out of phase with each other, the management and any understanding of reasonable behaviour. The RFU itself is a mess. Anyone could take the job on Monday with one structure in place and by the end of the Six Nations have a totally different structure above and around him, probably without any say in the matter. Leave a country where the team is on the up, your stock is high, and there is a strong chance that you could be one of the top four countries in the world come the next RWC to go to a country where you'll spend the best part of a year without support, structure and a clear plan. Where you have the joy of a team clearly not pulling together in any way that matters. Maybe he's really up for a new challenge, but man is that ever a challenge.

Teams of the pool stages

Usually when I do this sort of thing, I pick a 15 man squad. This time I won't be doing that, because with 600+ players, most of who have played a bit in one match or another and largely not against each other, it would be a mammoth task.

In addition, you have to wonder, or I do, in how many positions I wouldn't be choosing an All-Black. There is competition at some places - perhaps most surprisingly 7 - but they are the #1 side in the world, playing at home and playing like #1. How the loss of Dan Carter will affect that, we will have to see.

What I am going to do, instead, is pick out two sides that have particularly impressed me, one from those going (or gone) home, one from those going forward into the later stages.

The team from those going home that has most impressed me is Russia. Russia are new to rugby, new to the RWC, and yes, they lost all 4 of their matches. They were comfortably beaten by Ireland, Italy and Australia - but they weren't totally blown away by any of them (unlike say Namibia) and they looked aware of how to play and not overawed in all their matches. Sides like Canada, USA etc. looked more composed but performed to expectations, Russia performed better in all their matches than I think anyone expected. Italy and Scotland, both going home, somewhat disappointed. Scotland lost two matches they could (and in one case would, with better officiating) have won but for about 1 minute of madness in total. For Italy, perhaps losing to Ireland and Australia was expected, but except against Australia, Ireland have looked out of sorts but wound up comfortably beating the Azuri, and stuff their much vaunted scrum.

Of those staying a week or more longer, Wales is, by the same criteria, my most impressive team. The All-Blacks looked good against France and I was inclined to think that was because they played well rather than France playing badly - but then came Tonga. Ireland produced only one really good performance. England have looked flat and lucky against both Argentina and Scotland. France... well Tonga. Australia - well Ireland and their next match: Cooper in particular looks out of sorts. Argentina have looked solid, but are only going forwards thanks to Barnes and co, not their talents. It's particularly hard to imagine them performing well in their side of the draw. South Africa have looked largely OK but have some serious issues - particularly at hooker. They've grown into the tournament though.

Wales though - were unlucky against South Africa, a team ranked a long way above them, and probably deserved a win (as well as actually scoring enough points for it although all the officials missed a penalty goal being scored). They've looked sharp and ruthless against Samoa and Fiji, both bogey sides, and kept their concentration against Namibia. Wales are certainly side that can look sharp when they're a little lucky, but they've looked sharp and good rather than sharp and lucky, even against South Africa they looked sharp and good when unlucky. There's no guarantee that they will go through Ireland, but they certainly have a good chance in what must be one of the hardest quarter-finals to call for all the right reasons.

My predictions:

New Zealand v South Africa for one semi. New Zealand to dispatch Argentina brutally, even without Carter. South Africa to choke the life out of Australia as Ireland did.

England v Wales for the other. France can always produce a performance and are hurting, but I think England will grind it out of them in a dull match. Wales to defend against Ireland doggedly and not take all their chances but make and take enough to get through.