Why will/why won't England win the 2015 RWC?
Previous weeks:
Week 6: England
Pretty simple: 2-3 reasons why they will win the RWC and 2-3 reasons why they won't.
Posted Jul 15, 2015, 9:21 AM UTC
55122
Reasons why WE will:
-
We have shown many different strings to our bow as a versatile team. See our attacking play against France in last game of 6N as well as us out muscling teams in the past with our physicality.
-
Home advantage. We have beaten New Zealand at Twickenham, this should mean that mentally the team should not be afraid of anyone coming here to play us.
-
Our forward pack should rival any other in the world. Especially with potentially the best international lock pairing back fit - Launchbury and Lawes.
Reasons why we won't:
-
We are inconsistent and could choke under pressure - see us against Wales in Cardiff 2013 for the grand slam.
-
A young team with lack of experience, one error or poor decision could decide the game.
-
Pool of death. Despite home advantage it is still going to be very difficult to top Pool A against Australia and Wales. If we come second in the group then I believe we are most likely to face South Africa in the QF who are the only team Stuart Lancaster's side have never beaten.
29
Lawes and Launchbury are a fearsome duo, but I think Whitelock and Retallick have them covered.
16
haha yes that's why I had to put potentially. We haven't seen Lawes and Launchbury together for a while but i'm hoping that come 31st October that they'll have the beating of Whitelock and Retallick. Or at least hoping the All Blacks get food poisoning again, perhaps from an English scone.
7
We'll be bringing our own secure supply of scones with us this time. The Black Scone Wagon will be under armed guard, day and night.
7
Reasons why they will:
- Clearly a strong squad, some great players in there (Ford, Joseph, etc.)
- Can beat both Wales and Australia on their day
- Home advantage which will be huge
Reasons why they won't:
- A lot of young players - Ford crumbled under the pressure and was generally subpar in the Aviva Prem final
- Although they can beat Wales and Australia, Wales and Australia can both beat England...
- They can't win the RWC because Wales are going to :-)
28
The last point for "won't" isn't fair, because that applies to every other non-Wales team too.
:-)
9
Will: Hartley's not in the squad. Wont: Hartley's not in the squad.
27
England will win because
- The alternative upsets me
England won't win because
-
Uruguay will win
-
Uruguay will win
18
Why they will:
- Great squad, especially the pack
- Great management
- Home advantage
- Can and will play 10 man rugby in important matches, but backs can be lethal on counterattack
Why they wont:
- Inexperienced backs showed vs. Ireland in Six Nations, World Cup has so much more pressure
- Ford is good, but he's not Wilkinson
- As everyone is going to say, that pool of death is just so hard to call.
- Ashton, fuck that guy, he'll drop the ball in one of his swan dives
On a side note, is there an order to the teams chosen every week? If so I can't see it and it's killing me
16
There's an order.
6
Helpfully vague...
Is the order based on something rugby related or just an order you chose one day?
5
I'm jesting. There is no order. Its about to get a bit stuck, because there's only the all blacks left, or maybe the pumas? Do they have a chance? Is it my place to make that call? What then? "Which underdogs will cause and upset?".
Difficult times for r/rugbyunion
15
u/CharredCheese would be appalled at your omission of Uruguay
8
Well we'll see the All Blacks vs. Pumas v. soon, so let's see what sort of chance the Pumas have.
You could also adjust the topic slightly, why will/wont certain minnows cause an upset and qualify for quarters or stop a big team coming top of the group (Italy beating France being an example I think could happen)
4
There is a big jump down to Argentina who are probably about level with Scotland as far as winning a world cup in England is concerned
2
Why they will:
-
Home advantage.
-
Strong forward pack.
-
Play smart ten man rugby that is effective in world cups.
Why they won't:
-
Hugely difficult pool. They can't even put out too much of a weakened team against Fiji, who were close to beating the Maori All Blacks.
-
One loss sees them through to play South Africa in the quarter final. If they make it through them it is a likely semi final against NZ.
-
Slightly unsettled build up with 2 key players out through discipline already.
-
Inexperience at 10.
-
No established centre pairing.
14
What do you mean by ten man rugby? I don't think I have heard that term before. Edit: I found it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_man_rugby.
3
The article explains it well, but leaves one notable absence. Quite often 10 man rugby will come with quick wingers who can run the pitch on the counter attack and sneak in a try.
It also under represents the importance of the 10, as traditionally most of the points will come from penalties, which need to be scored.
7
Never won a home world cup before. Beaten by the All Blacks 4 times in a row. No Tuilagi.
0†
I keep forgetting that Tuilagi won't be playing in the WC. Crazy. He is a huge loss. As good as Joseph is (I've only seen highlights), he's not the defence smashing gamebreaker Tuilagi is imo.
14
I miss him, but England haven't played with him for over a year and they've shown they can get by without him so far.
13
Completely different styles but I think Joseph is just as dangerous as Tualagi, our problem is now who to pair him with. Convert Manu to 12, it is the only way!
9
Not a popular opinion, but I feel Joseph is overrated. He had an explosive introduction, but against Ireland he was anonymous. I think he looked better than he is because of how poor defensively teams played against him (most notable being the two Welsh defenders who literally fell off him).
Don't get me wrong, he's good, but he's not great.
6
Maybe a bit overrated, he has his moments if class and a few sub par moments, as with any young player whether he hits is potential is a big factor. Though not many players against Ireland had a good game, we never looked like we were in that game. Watson is who you want to watch, personally feel he'll be the best of the youngsters we've got (bar maybe Ford and Slade but even then), he could be insanely good.
7
I agree with a Bath fan!!!!!
2
True, it'd be great for you guys if he does reach his potential, but it's a double edged sword. If he becomes great, he'll be sold to Toulon and never play for England again.
1
Both players can be figured out. The difference is that you can actually do something about JJ, not so much with manu, other than put 3 defenders on him. And that just leaves space. I'd love to see Slade and Manu in the centres. Not going to happen.
5
It's funny you say this because he did get a go in an England shirt a couple of years ago and was pretty underwhelming, although clearly his club form wasn't what it was now and his form has gone up and down a bit. I haven't watched enough premiership to really judge and I'm sure I'm buying into the hype but he is certainly dangerous and if he replicates his best form consistently then he will be worthy of it. I hate how few specifics I can remember of 6N now that you mention it haha, I'm going to have to rewatch every game!
4
WILL:
- They've done it before, away from home, and facing the home favourites in the final. This year, they'll also have home advantage.
- As well as beating Australia in the autumn, they've now beaten Wales twice in succession - once already this year, with a weakened team.
- Stuart Lancaster has had 4 years with the squad and knows what each and every player is capable of.
WON'T:
- England's biggest hinderance are themselves (and not just Tuilagi, Hartley, Cipriani.) Their reputation remains as the "Could-Have-Been-Kings"; in every Six Nations since 2011, they've only managed to finish 2nd, losing to Wales twice, Ireland and France over the last 4 years. Against France, it was only by 2 points.
- Despite their recent success, England have scored far fewer points against Wales than vice versa (England 65 - 83 Wales.) In a group that will likely define the QF places by points difference, this can be crucial.
- Like any team that progresses through Pool A, they will have the most difficult task in order to reach the final (i.e. face the All Blacks and South Africa in order to get there.)
10
Like any team that progresses through Pool A, they will have the most difficult task in order to reach the final (i.e. face the All Blacks and South Africa in order to get there.)
Unless they win the pool in which case they get the easiest possible route to the final
8
If England tops the pool, they will get Scotland in Quarters, and Ireland/France/Argentina in the semis.
If they come second, they will get South Africa in quarters and then New Zealand in Semis. That will be hell.
6
thats if SA doesn't mess up again.. they came second last time right?
1
They've done it before
No, this team has not, and I think there are very few involved in the wider management from when England did win in 2003.
Perhaps the only team that can lay claim to the "they've done it before" tag is the All Blacks
3
Them, and about 5 or 6 Boks.
I think Catt is the only 2003 alum still about the scrum. Maybe Rowntree, but I'm not sure.
2
Reasons they will:
- Home advantage
- Sam Burgess
Reasons they won't:
- Home advantage
- Sam Burgess
9
Win:
- At home
- Talented
- Confident
Lose
- Weight of expectation on a young side
- Australia
- Wales
8
They won't because eventually they'll have to get by the USA Eagles.
7
cough cough
6
Why they will:
Great depth of field in every position,especially at lock and center
Home advantage
They beat their main rivals in the pool of death last year.
Why they won't
Inexperienced team, many of which are coming back from injury.
They lost to the all blacks 4 times in a row last year.
Hooker/lineout worries. Without Hartley, they could be our downfall
6
I would say depth only truly lies with the forward pack, wingers for England in the 6N were pretty poor, got better towards the end but still. 12 hasn't truly been filled by anyone an there isn't much depth in it either. Other than that JJ and Ford have replacements if needed and they are very strong.
3
Nowell scored 3 tries in three appearances and Watson had an extremely good 6N overall so I wouldn't say our wingers were 'pretty poor'
4
Who needs a 12 if your* pack is going to beat up all opposition? England play 10 man at world cup, and they have a good shot at winning with it. If their replacement hooker can throw consistently they'll be v. dangerous
edit: Spelling*
3
Cheap comment about the pack, you are right a v. powerful pack but its not the best (demonstrated by south africa and ireland) and can be matched or beaten despite its strength. Very good but not beyond the best.
0
We matched a weakened England pack at home. Don't mistake that for England not having a great pack, they could legitimately win if they play like they did in '03, same tactics and everything. Then Robshaw will take over the England team when Stuart resigns/is sacked and do disastrously.
4
powerful pack but its not the best (demonstrated by south africa and ireland)
When was this demonstrated exactly? Our pack almost won us the SA game from our mauling work alone with an underdone Farrell at 10. Against Ireland we didn't have 4 important starters (Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Morgan)
3
There is a lot of depth at 12, but SL ignores it in favour 12trees. If I recall correctly Barritt is the incumbent, with Burrell filing in during the 6N, but there is also eastmond, Slade and Farrell
2
That's true,my bad but i still feel England are seriously lacking in the wings, jn is good but they're still all lacking aerially and defensively from my point of view. I'm probably just being overly critical but we will see once the wc starts :).
3
Watson is still only 21 and just had his first 6N while Nowell is looking very good all round. We have plenty of options but maybe not the full package just yet.
3
We will:
*Home advantage for majority of out matches.
*Joe Marler, Dan Cole, Corbs, Ravey Baby Davey Wilson, Chris Robshaw, Ben Morgan, Joe Launch, Courtney Lawes, Billy Vunipola
*George Ford, Jo Joseph, Anthony Watson, Jack Nowell, Mike Brown
Won't:
*Pool of death
*If we do somehow crawl out of the nightmare pool of death we will likely be second and that means a likely facing South Africa, even if we win that I can't see anyone having the legs to take on New Zealand in a final.
*As exciting as our back line is, it's still very green.
6
Back line needs work, and New Zealand played shit in the last world cup final, almost losing to an even worse France in one of the most disappointing games I've ever seen.
6
one of the most disappointing games I've ever seen.
You must be made of stone.
2
there were three scores in the whole game, and the general play was dull as can be. The game was loaded with errors and missed kicks, I do not understand how you can defend it
3
Not to mention a whole roster of shocking refereeing decisions.
2
Because World Cup finals are about more than the quality of the rugby.
That game was the story of the incredible pressure that was on that team, of McCaw playing most of the tournament with a broken foot, of playing with the 4th choice fly half, of an entire nation on the edge.
Criticising the quality of play is missing the point of World Cups.
0
They will because:
-
Home advantage
-
Two, maybe three of their pool games will be similar to knockout matches. They'll know how to win the final when there's still 20 teams.
-
Lancaster has been around a while and knows his shit from shoe-polish.
WON'T
-
New Zealand
-
South Africa
-
England
6
Will:
-
Beaten the Aussies and the Welsh the last two times we played both teams.
-
Dominant forward pack and two talented tens (potentially three with Slade but if he is picked he is likely to play centre) means we can play really strong ten man, knockout style rugby (e.g. against Wales and Australia last season)
-
When we try to throw the ball about a bit it can go really well.
Won't:
-
When we try to throw the ball about too much it can go really really badly.
-
Could easily lose composure (see against Ireland this Six Nations).
-
6
Will:
- Great set piece
- Great training environment/ethos/management etc.
- Best second row pair in the world (with Retallic/Whitelock)
- Ability to score when they dominate (thanks to Ford's efficiency on the front foot)
Won't
- Tough pool might see them come out already tired. (They should come out)
- Their defence wasn't great during the Six Nations (see games against Italy and Scotland; France game doesn't count because it was insane)
- Immense pressure on their shoulders
- Ford can be bullied to underperform (it hasn't been done by anyone yet) I consider them second most likely team to win the tournament.
5
Will: fucking Wales Won't: fucking WAAALLLEEESSSS
I think England will hit the ground running, they always show up for a world cup, especially at home. Oz game could go either way, both capable of beating the other. But I don't think they could beat the Wales that bested the Irish in 6n. But Wales have a tendency to improve as they go, which you can't really afford in a WC. So I think the Welsh oz and English games could go anywhere, god knows what Welshmen will turn up to play!!
5
Reason they will:
- Home advantage
- Advantage of playing at home
Reason they wont:
- All Blacks
- NZ rugby team
5
Will:
-
strong pack with the ability to dominate any team
-
Refreshing young backline with the ability to create chances and score tries.
-
Home advantage and belief
Wont:
-
Lack of experience
-
Pool of death
-
Defence not at the same level as last year
5
Reason why they will:
Have not reached the best of their ability yet. We witnessed glimpses of it in this previous 6N but they have to this point lacked the consistency.
Home advantage
George Ford is the second coming.
Reason why they will not:
Youth team with a distinct lack of experience that will be telling against teams packed full of players that have already played in WC's, where the stakes are much higher and pressure is more telling.
Many believe we haven't hit our potential yet, but maybe this is as good as it gets?
N.B. Despite what happens this year, 2019 will be England's year.
The 'inexperience' argument only applies to the backs really - easily enough exp. amongst Cole, T. Youngs, Marler, Corbs, Lawes, Parling, Robshaw + others.
But yes, Ford, Joseph, Watson, Nowell, May, Eastmond, etc are arguably a bit green. Big responsibility for B. Youngs and Brown...
Our pack is awesome, for sure. I don't worry too much about Ford or Farrell, although each of their strengths are the others weakness. Brown I'm not worried about either (I mean, I'm a Quins fan so I've been watching him for around 10 years anyway.) Youngs I'm never quite convinced by, if he keeps a level head we'll be ok, but if makes snap decisions as he often does, we could be scuppered.
Watson and May (or Yarde, or Nowell, take your pick really) should be fine, the centres are the big question mark for me. They all play well on their day, but I have no idea which pairing is best or which will actually turn up come the WC.
The centre pairing I like the most from the ones currently possible would be JJ with Barritt on the inside. We're definitely not in a shortage for quality there, but getting a good pairing is key above all else when it comes to centres. I liked Burrell + JJ at the 6N, but I think Barritt is comparable to Burrell in playing style, and a fair tad better at the moment.
Slade, Daly, and Eastmond are perfectly good options as well, of course, but the pairing that I imagine working best would be Barritt + JJ. Oh, and there's 36 as well.. I always forget about 36..
Youngs, Ford, Watson, Barrit, JJ, Nowell, Brown seems to me like the best and most likely option. Although I'd love Danny Care back in 2014 6N form.
Then Farrell, 36 and Burgess on the bench. I honestly believe that Burgess will make the final 31 squad as a forward/back option, I don't think they would've taken him to Denver otherwise. If taking him to Denver was for experience then they would've taken Itoje.
Second coming of Jonny, in case anyone was confusing him with that Jesus chap
Ah here. Even as an Irish man I can safely say that Jesus has nothing on Jonny
One is Holy and Divine, savior of men and the Messiah. The other is just some guy from Nazareth.
One is a gent, the other doesn't exist