What goes in to making a rugby great?

Obviously, from the player and their various coaches, physios and the like, a lot of work and effort and dedication. But that wasn't quite what I meant.

Rather, if you look at the sizes of player pools available why are some hitting way over their weight? Looking at the senior males numbers, England have 166,000, France 110,000, South Africa 109,000. Although there isn't a convenient sort routine, Australia at about 40k, then USA at 35k, beat out a cluster of New Zealand, Ireland and Wales at around 25k, then it's a step down to Scotland and Italy (around 12k) and then the rest of the world. (Note that Argentina don't report senior male numbers but have total males > Australia, so should possibly be up above Australia for senior males too.)

So why are the USA so low in the world rankings (17 at the moment). Although England and South Africa have been world number 1, I don't think France has, and New Zealand are, however much you might not want to hear it, the most successful side since rankings were introduced, with the highest ever rating and by far the longest possession of the number 1 spot despite being 6th or 7th in terms of total size?

I suspect the answer is largely in the mind. Or perhaps more accurately in the experience. While you can argue who the fittest (in a physical sense) individual is, certainly down to Italy and Scotland in the rankings and sizes, you don't see sides routinely win because of better fitness - although you can see sides in the lead stretch that with a combination of mental and physical willingness. But rugby, perhaps more than any other team sport, is about the brain. Making the choices to join the ruck or stand off, pass, off-load, take the tackle and so on. They are all essential choices in rugby that every player makes throughout the game. This is why someone like Brian O'Driscoll is still a very good player. He doesn't have the speed and agility that made him dangerous as a younger man, but he knows now much better how to apply himself, when to find that extra burst of power or force his old bones to make that swerve. (OK, I'm making him sound like he's only walking with a zimmer frame and he's still fit enough for 80 minutes of international rugby but it is clearly getting harder and harder for him to stay at the top level physically.)

And here, I think, national culture and club structures play a vital role. England and France play club rugby not to lose and with a lot of foreign players. The former Celtic league (now with Italy of course), Super Rugby and the like, play largely with home-grown players and because there is no penalty beyond pride for losing, they play to win. In addition, all these countries have relatively few top-flight sides - four or five typically, but because they're largely home-grown talent you also have a solid pool of players at the highest level not dissimilar to the pools of the biggest countries' unions. Plus you have the benefit of being able to choose more combinations of players used to playing together at club level as well - Nonu and Smith (both Hurricanes) beat out any combination with SBW in big matches due, I largely suspect, to familiarity. When Carter and Slade went down, Cruden (also a Hurricane last year) slotted in comfortably between Weepu (ALSO a Hurricane) and Nonu - how much did that familiarity help them all?

Add to that in New Zealand well coached, structured and scouted rugby from at least the age of seven, and a system (NPC) under Super Rugby level that mixes new talent, talent at current Super Rugby but not quite All Black level and retired All Blacks for a year or two, and you also get a system that spreads the skills and experience into the youngsters.

And that, I suspect, is the true magic. All those things that we're used to seeing the All Blacks do so well, year after year, game after game, are down to the fact that when as a brash youngster of 22 or so they take they field, they play with an extra chunk of year's experience behind them of playing top-flight competitive age-group rugby. They're making the smart choices of the BOD of today, with the physical exuberance of the BOD of a decade ago.

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.

Bad refereeing

What makes for a bad refereeing mistake?

Let's be honest - every referee makes a mistake every now and again. Probably less often than players and coaches believe in the heat of the moment, but make mistakes they do.

But why are some of them shrug and move on, while others are talked about for days, weeks, sometimes even years?

I rather think the quality of offence is irrelevant. It could be a knock-on to a head-butt - a scrum to a red card - and it might be talked about for ages to come. The clarity and impact of the offence means more - much more.

Contemponi's offside against Scotland was clear - he was miles offside - and critical - because it affected the outcome of the match very clearly. Last second, award a penalty in front of the sticks to the side that's 1 point down... he might have missed of course, but it's very unlikely. It's destined to hang around on Barnes' resume, along with that forward pass and so on for a long time. And Mr. Barnes has just missed another one, catching the retaliation and not the original offence. OK, that's not uncommon, but the original offence wasn't subtle and should have been caught.

There is another issue I believe - that is having a feel for the spirit of the game. Rugby is a game, perhaps more than any other, where circumstances come into play at every moment. A player crawling out the wrong side of the ruck is technically offside but is rolling away from the ball letting the other team play it (at least supposedly). The whistle shouldn't (and usually doesn't) go for that, unless that player impedes the other side playing the ball before he gets back onside. I remember one Tri-Nations match when the opposite lock was pretty much in the three-quarter line and the side with the ball just passed the ball across in front of him like he wasn't there. Clearly offside, but he kept his discipline and watched the ball go by in front of him and the referee kept his cool and let the play develop - not even an advantage because he didn't interfere. Smart and definitely right in terms of letting the game flow. If the referee is one that is generally believed to have a good sense of the game, his mistakes are perhaps overlooked or forgiven more easily. If they're a martinet and blow for every little thing, then missing something is even less acceptable.

RWC Good and bad

As we've got further into the world cup the tier 2 nations have appeared worse and worse. I suspect there are three reasons for this.

First, as a less professional side, it's relatively easy to get up for the first game, but it gets harder and harder as the tournament progresses.

Second, the big teams are, to use a cliché, finding their straps and getting their form teams together, combinations working. In week one playing a bit below par still gives you a win if you're a big side. Come week 3 or 4, you're not worrying about the tier 2 nation, you're playing to show combinations and form for the quarter-finals.

Neither of these can really be changed. But the third one can be looked at.

The 'big' nations play every week or so. They get 6 or more days between matches. The smaller nations often get only 4. Namibia played their 4 RWC matches in 16 days! That's a challenge to fitness and conditioning that even the fittest of the top-flight teams would struggle with - although they have the resources to put out two sides pretty much which the smaller sides don't. That could be changed.

I understand that there's a strong desire to have the big sides play at the weekends to get better TV audiences, and an equal drive to get matches, or at least a match, on every day to keep the audience hooked. However, Russia vs USA or similar is one for the real purists to be honest.

So, what to do? If you have a pattern spreading the 4 groups over 7 days, and we count Friday, Saturday and Sunday as the weekend (possibly only one evening game on a Friday) then we should be able to construct a timetable so that the "big" matches are on the peak viewing days, but there's rugby every day. In addition, we should be able to create a timetable such that everyone gets at least 6 days rest. This might not be as good as 7 days, but will be fairer on the weaker sides, the squads with less depth and so on. It will, of course, also let the bigger sides have a bit more chance to soak sore muscles and recover from minor injuries.

I sketched out such a timetable and you can do it. In fact it becomes quite easy to expand the competition slightly, add a 6th team in each pool and spread rugby wider. I understand this is expensive and time consuming - but you could also add an extra layer (a shield and plate contest similar to 7's) of knock-out rounds. More time, more matches, more TV revenue.

And I hope whoever takes the baton for the next one has noted just how good choirs sound singing anthems. They are, after all, designed for mass singing and it sounds good. The duets last time worked but the choirs have been great. Lets do it again please?

I was going to rant about Wayne Barnes. He has no sympathy for the game, no feel for it, and yet again he's made a critical and obvious mistake in a match that has directly and clearly affected the outcome. Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone accepts that. If they don't, they don't survive long playing the game, nor watching it. But if you're selecting the best referees you want to pick people that don't make big critical ones often. Missing a knock-on in the middle of a ruck... ok. Missing a player 6m offside causing the drop kick to win the game to miss... not OK. Call a ball being reefed back out of control but legally (I think) a knock-on by the other side - bad. Appearing to change how you referee the break-down REALLY bad.

OK, I've ranted a bit. Hopefully he'll get the shove. Again. And someone will learn.

The first week of the RWC

This week has been too hectic to allow for a review of each match, in fact, I haven't managed to watch more than highlights of some.

The best match, despite the result, of week 1 was SA v Wales. Wales played really well, and South Africa were lucky to win. In fairness, though, South Africa v Wales was, to both me and a die-hard Boks fan I know too close to call for the first time in a while. The wheels could fall off the Welsh wagon - they seem rather lacking in depth in too many positions to cope with injuries for example - but their first 15 are genuinely world-quality players, with certainly Warburton challenging to be recognised as the best open side in the world. I don't think he's there yet, but in a year or two, I think he'll take the crown - stealing it from McCaw's hands, and nudging aside Pocock and Brussow in the process.

The other thing to take away has been the improvement of the so-called minnows. Japan scared France. Scotland were lucky against Romania, Ireland did outclass USA - but it was a match rather than a demolition. On Wednesday Canada thoroughly deserved to beat Tonga - maybe not a huge upset, but a result that 4 years ago would have been unthinkable. The IRB deserves a lot of credit for this. They have been putting money, facilities and training opportunities into improving the game for the Tier 2 nations, and more widely. We're seeing the results of that. In some way rugby is a hard game to do that with... if one side is just 1% better than the other at every position you can get some very one-sided results, even at the highest level. In football, for example, if you're within 5% at every position, winning, or drawing is plausible, but not really in rugby. But that gulf in the Tier 2 nations is down from 5-10% to 2-5% , and maybe this year, more likely in 4 years time if the improvements continue, the weaker top tier sides will lose - at least one of them.

It would be nice to see changes to make the gap narrow even more. In the Southern Hemisphere it's a bit harder, but perhaps inviting a NZ Maori side into the Pacific Nations Cup would make sense to get exposure to the toughest competition. In the Norther Hemisphere there is already an understrength Shadow Six Nations (A-teams from the countries that field them). Making that up to 6 nations by inviting the better teams in tier 2 to replace the major nations that don't field an A-team should make sense to all of them - and a competition for the second tier nations in the November test window would let you determine the top teams and give them more match practise. There must be other ways to do this too, but they are at least moving the right way.

The spectacle and the matches are doing their normal thing. We've had grinding matches, we've finally had a blow-out, but interest is high, at least chez moi.

Will Canada follow up their good performance against Tonga to deliver against an unpredictable and unsettled France? Will Ireland suddenly shake off their cobwebs and remember why they're called the Golden Generation? Or will they be remembered as the generation that hung on for a year or two too long? Will Samoa repeat their heroics of a few weeks ago when they beat Australia in Australia, and repeat Welsh heartache?

I wouldn't put money on any of those results to be honest. In fact if I were a betting sort of girl, I might put money on Australia to beat the spread, I'm so underwhelmed by Ireland. But three matches from six well worth watching for that risk of significant upset should make for a good weekend.