RWC Fever

Don't get me wrong, I will be glued to the TV at some obscure times of night and day in 5 weeks time, for the following few weeks.

But I am more than a little annoyed by the speculation in the rugby press.

Nathan Sharpe has been left out of the Australia squad for this Saturday's Bledisloe Cup and Tri-Nations clash with New Zealand. People are saying this means he'll be left out of the 30 man squad for the world cup.

Why?

There's a 22-man squad for Saturday and 30 for the world cup. We've seen Australia, South Africa, and less overtly New Zealand rest key players. Where, for example, were the battles between Thorn and Matfield last Saturday? Both players were rested, that's where. No one thinks either of them will, barring injury, be left at home in September. So why must Sharpe be washed up and out of Deans' thinking? He's a veteran lock. Everyone, certainly Robbie Deans, knows what he offers the squad. He could easily be in the match-day 22 for each match Australia play in the world cup, whether starting or on the bench. OK, resting him for what could be a huge game in the Tri-Nations seems like an odd choice, but it gives Deans a chance to see 3 locks up against the All Blacks, which is a big test for them, and rest his veteran player.

Of course he could be out of favour and never pull on the green and gold again. But reading that into this choice is silly. I'm sure both Deans and Henry have talked to their larger squad. Players like Fruen have been told "Sorry, there's too much competition for your place this year, but we want you for 2012, and if there's an injury to those ahead of you, we'll still be taking you," no one doubts Kieran Read will be back into the squad. Picking wingers is going to be a nightmare - because all four he's tried so far, probable or possible say, have really put their hand up and looked good. Sharp could be dropped, but he could be rested and know that's all it is. We don't know. So why the shouting?

Team of the Six Nations

This is an unusually tricky selection this year. No side has truly dominated, having some good and some poor performances both as a team and as individuals in each position. There have also been a large number of injuries so some promising looking players have been ruled out that way. Quite a few teams have also had two players vying for some key positions, making it harder to choose them.

Front Row:
Castrogiovani, Rhys, Mitchell
Cole was unlucky here, but didn't show against Wales or Ireland. Given it was an all new Welsh front row, that cost him heavily. Mitchell might be lucky, but has impressed when stepping in to the void in Welsh props. Rhys too, had a good run as captain and fulfilled all the duties at Hooker without his main props there and in combination that got him the nod. He must have known he was using the wrong ball for that try, but it was one of those bits of gamesmanship that you see so often it's hard to criticise him for trying it.

Locks:
Wyn Jones, Gray
Both have been good in all aspects of modern lock play - line out, scrummage, tackling, ball carrying, clearing rucks etc. They've both had players better at some aspects than them, Shaw in the line out for example, but all round they were the best. Lawes might have been in the list if he'd stayed fit. Nallet had a good try and a lucky one against Wales but it was not really typical of his play. Bradley Davies had a solid championship against the poor sides. He didn't look bad against the better ones but didn't shine either.

Backrow:
Dusatoir, Parese, Warburton
This list was surprisingly easy. You may disagree but I think they were the stand-outs in each position. Again. Harinordiqui could have been in contention, most of the Scots backrow, most of the Irish and the others in the Welsh backrows too. But these were the best players I think - how they'd work in combination is another matter!

9
Phillips.
OK, he wasn't in the running really, until Youngs had a shocker and got subbed early. The French and Irish chopped and changed too much. Scotland and Italy never looked that good at 9.

10
Hook.
Hook is too good to leave out, just like Gatland found. The Irish and English kept chopping and English. Tranh Duc... maybe. But Hook played a lot at 10, made the back line tick and generally kicked well for territory and points when necessary too. He should not have been yellow-carded for a perfectly decent tackle against France.

Centres
Davies, BOD.
One young, one old, both in positions where actually no one really shone throughout. Hape and Tindall - solid in defence, dull in attack, no options save off-load to Foden/Ashton. France... well it's France. Darcy... old, slow and struggling. Italy... had a good game each, but only one and even that was only good. Ansbro looked promising at times, but doesn't quite make it.

Back three
Williams, Foden, Ashton.
Ashton was perhaps the most certain of the picks - even with a dull performance against Ireland.
I don't think Foden is world quality but he's a threat in attack and fast enough against the attacks we've seen to cope. Against SA and NZ - he might be in a lot of trouble.
Williams got the nod over Bowe (who certainly had a good game or two) because of the sheer electricity each touch bought not only to the crowd but to the defenders - even when not playing well he looked threatening because of it.

Still Welsh heavy of course... although some places like Phillips were a surprise to me. Eight from Wales, two from England and two from Italy. Yes Italy, one from each of the rest.

Italy have improved markedly. England look ordinary if you can stop Foden and Ashton as both Scotland and Ireland showed - they're really lacking experience in depth. Can Ireland pull it together for enough matches? Can Scotland build on their good finish? Will Wales suddenly click - sadly I think not but they've got a surprising depth in some places. France are... well French. They could click at the right time or they could fall apart.

I'm still not looking outside the Southern Hemisphere for the winners, and I'm thinking the ABs at the moment.

Northern Hemisphere winner? Fat chance

We're half way through the Six Nations. For most of these sides there are 5 matches before the RWC starts in New Zealand. (Hopefully including Christchurch, a city I didn't particularly like but which is suffering massively after a second series of earthquakes and after-shocks in a few months and didn't deserve that.)

The predominant feature so far? The side that makes the fewer mistakes wins. You can, of course, argue that's always the case in a rugby match, but it's not usually the predominant feature of an international series. Take the last Tri-Nations. I think it's probably true that the side that made the fewest errors won, but the predominant feature was the speed of the All-Blacks at the breakdown in both attack and defence and their ability to convert their pressure, speed and fitness into victories. The other feature was a rather lacklustre Bok display, probably not helped by starting off getting hammered in NZ twice and then travelling to Australia and getting beaten there on the back of their Kiwi pain.

But look at today's results. England beat France, but despite Les Bleus making a right pig's ear of just about every scoring opportunity with ball in band, the scores were close because the English kept making mistakes and giving away both scoring and possession opportunities. Italy lost to Wales in part because the Welsh defence proved capable of keeping the Italians from the try-line except when sheer brute power was enough (I'm not sure that's something to be proud of, Italy's backs are not noted for their creativity in rugby), in part because Hook and Shane are world class and flashed together for moments of brilliance, but also because they kept making mistakes - as did their foes.

Two weeks ago France didn't so much win as Ireland conspired to lose by playing badly. That was better than Scotland who conspired to lose by not playing at all. The week before against France Scotland possibly played the most creative rugby of the teams, but conspired with the French not to bother defending. It was a good, high-scoring match because of that, but France were just better and managed to score more points - helped in no small part because all their tries came directly from Scottish mistakes.

So, facing up against Australia, New Zealand, South Africa... if they don't play out of their skins compared to this we might see some massive scores in favour of the South. England, maybe, have the hoodoo over Australia. But so close to home, in a RWC, and with plenty of chances for Robbie Deans to sort out his best front row I'm not so sure. Because if it's fewer errors, the Southern Hemisphere sides will be a class apart.

Reflecting on the November internationals.

Because this time next year some nation will be basking in the glory of being the World Champions of Rugby, this Autumn series has been very closely observed by the pundits.

And what can this amateur pundit tell you?

Well, New Zealand are the favourites to lift the trophy on home soil. Mind you, they are normally the favourites and don't lift it - proof that everyone raises their game against the AB and you need some luck too to win the tournament. But they have the skill, the depth in most positions, the belief and home-field advantage.

Beyond that? Not sure. In alphabetical order of the "big" sides:

Argentina maybe don't deserve to be here. More than any side they're looking old and one-dimensional. Three years ago they had a great side but retirements, age and playing in France have seemingly removed that. If they don't play well they might not get out of the pool stages this year.

Australia are a team that is close to getting it right. They are a year or so on from England in that building process, getting it right more often than not. They still mess up - England for example - but they should be a real threat. Semifinalists at least, and a reasonable chance at lifting the trophy.

England are a team that is building. If everything works for them and their opponents have an off-day they can beat good sides - Australia take note. If their opponents bully them and keep the ball, they can lose to experienced sides not playing very well - South Africa for example. They are firing, on this November's evidence less than half the time at the moment. That will probably improve a bit by RWC time. They could go all the way - they'll be a bit further along by next year - but they could crash out in the quarter finals too, and that's my guess.

France are in a "because we are French" place right now. Some key injuries hampered them against Australia and their strength in depth is oddly questionable but you never know. They should storm out of their group stages and probably into the semis.

Ireland are a team where it appears, more and more, their stars are past their prime. Their big names can still produce moments of magic, but it's moments whereas last year it was minutes, 2 years ago it was most of the game. If they get lucky those moments of magic could turn a game still but you think it's a matter of luck whereas in 2008/9 it could have been a matter of merit. Getting past the quarter finals seems unlikely.

Scotland are also unpredictable. But, they will have the pool stages to knock the rust off and then they're dangerous as they proved against the Boks. Given recent results, if they play to their potential, quarter finals, maybe, outside bet, semis.

South Africa are hard to judge. They have a number of players getting old, but unlike Ireland's old boys most of them are still performing most of the time. Another year and will they still be doing that? It's hard to see Matfield and Botha getting too old in that time, and they have some younger players starting to slot in and some talented players to return from injury. Smit seems to make them gel and if he can be playing well enough to be there, they could be dangerous. Semi-finals are a must you think, finals are reachable, defending their title might be a match too far though.

Wales are hard to judge too. They are clearly, badly, lacking in strength in depth. I wonder if the magic of Gatland and Edwards is getting a bit stale too. But a lucky run with no injuries and some confidence beating Italy, Ireland and maybe Scotland in the 6N, England and France could fall too - maybe England in the summer are more likely than in Feb - and they played well enough for parts of November to do well. Quarter finals should be achieved. Possibly the semis.

Everyone else? Sorry... partly because our coverage isn't great but I didn't see much by which to judge. Samoa could do nicely, Fiji too, Italy could improve with a year of Magners etc. behind them.

My prediction:

New Zealand
Australia
South Africa
France

for the top 4 in that order.

England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland as the losing quarter finalists.

Last weekend of North v South

So who is up or down after the last three weeks?

New Zealand and South Africa up you'd think. Both have some question marks around the depth of their squad and fitting the newer players in to the mix. On that score I think the AB have an edge. Their big change around came last and against Wales - a weakened Wales but still a Wales with 7 Lions in it. They struggled, but won. South Africa really struggled against Italy, and whilst Italy are a far better team than 10 years ago, IN SA they should have handled it a lot better.

Scotland, although they didn't play this week, overjoyed. They beat Argentina twice IN Argentina, and the next week the Pumas stuffed France. Result.

In the "some positives" group you have England, Wales and Australia. England finally beat a big S. Hemisphere side away. Losing to the Maori will have taken the gloss off it though. Australia will be similarly upset by the loss to England despite the circumstance and a lacklustre performance against Ireland. Wales lost twice, but certainly improved and look to have gained valuable experience and comfort playing in New Zealand. Argentina just scrape in here. They were seriously looking a shadow of their former selves against Scotland, but looked great against France.

Those in trouble - France and Ireland. No wins on tour. Seriously not good at this remove from the world cup.

Today's results

Whose up, down, etc?

Well Graham Henry must be up, despite a couple of injuries. Wales looked good for half the match, threatening for parts of it, despite missing two first choice props, first and second choice open sides, first choice outside centre and one winger. The All Blacks coped with Wales whilst they looked good and as soon as they ceased looking good, they cut loose.

Warren Gatland is probably not that pissed off despite Wales getting hammered. Playing the All Blacks in New Zealand is always a big ask. He's found out things about his squad, including some positives and some negatives. And living with the All Blacks for half a match is not a disaster. Shaun Edwards will be more upset because the Welsh defence just went away in the second half and that is his bailiwick. But it's an angry in a "we can work on this and improve" way rather than a "you were useless" way. Lets hope they can improve by next week.

Deans will be disappointed... Johnson happy if not elated. Australia shouldn't have lost, but Giteau forgot how to kick. His front row stood up far better than last week and whilst his loose forwards looked... well were anonymous this week, he's got to know they won't all be anonymous at the same time each week. Johnson, however, produced a team that played some good attacking rugby and doing it won the game. Will they keep it up? Let's hope so.

PDV ought to be worried. Mallet, apart from shaving his head, happy. The second string Boks looked very second string. Worryingly so, if you look at the NZ Maori's performance over the last two weeks alongside the All Blacks. Italy were still thumped, but put up a performance.

But two entertaining matches... better than nothing, even if England did win.

First June tests

Everyone is announcing yesterday's tests as the unofficial start of the RWC campaign - which starts in 15 months or so, and fewer than 20 test matches time.

After the four matches, it's hard to guess who is happiest.

The Boks stuffed Les Bleus. That's been a bogie match for the Boks for a few years, so it must feel good for PDV et al. There's that little question of was it just a bad day for France that will linger but still a great result for South Africa.

Australia must be happy too. Their front row started with 2 caps, and it showed. England dominated the scrums completely and essentially scored all of their points via the scrum - a penalty kick and two penalty tries. Australia showed willing there but were completely outplayed. However, in every other aspect, the opposite was true. Even when Foden and Ashton combined to counter-attack, the next pass was to the only player supporting them... Simon Shaw who was promptly wrapped up, tackled and turned over. That's not to be critical of Shaw, he at least was doing the right thing but where were the other runners to keep pace on the move? Australia completely deserved their win, and as front row forwards come back their scrum will improve. No panic from Deans and a happy glow of satisfaction I think.

New Zealand will be happy too. The red card and sin binning in short order destroyed the game as a contest. Despite that, Dagg, Franks, Vito, Whitelock and Stanley all produced very accomplished looking performances. Crudden - a bit less accomplished but looking like he could grow into the replacement for Carter that the All Blacks have been lacking for some time. Muliaina in particular must be feeling a little worried about Dagg's performance. Franks, Franks, Woodcock and Tialata will make an awesome pool of 4 high quality props. Thorne and Williams are probably still the dominant locks, but Boric, Eaton and Whitelock in some order look good for stepping up to the plate. Thorne will probably go after the world cup, but New Zealand won't be lacking in replacement options.

And, of course, New Zealand have the Maori side too - playing Ireland next week, so a complete second 22 playing internationals gaining experience, match practise and the like.

And finally Andy Robinson must be happy and proud. Beating Argentina in Argentina is always hard. They'd never lost at that stadium until yesterday. He must have concerns too though - his side are still looking limited, albeit less limited than England.

It's also a toss-up for the angriest between Johnson and Kidney. Heaslip and ROG should both know better and they gave the game away. England just looked flat and clueless. It's hard to believe that even if Johnson was solely concentrating on the forwards he'd produce a team that clueless.

But apart from Scotland, it has that feel of business as usual. The Tri-Nations this year and next will sort out the pecking order and barring a miracle it will be a Southern Hemisphere side keeping the RWC on this week's showing. They're only going to build and improve after all.