Rugby World Cup 2015, history will be made
CHRIS BROWN
Last updated 10:20 27/11/2014
October, 2011. A very gratifying time for New Zealand rugby fans. A 24 year wait was over. Our team had become world champions once again, and it was great.
Being a rugby tragic, I often wondered what had held us back? What was it that kept tripping New Zealand up at the final hurdle? Or, more painfully, sometimes the second or third to last hurdle.
And with Rugby World Cup 2015 just around the corner, I'm wondering if the All Blacks can bring it home again, and with their dominance it's hard not to give them the favourites moniker.
If the pundits picking New Zealand are correct, they would be the first back-to-back World Cup champions in history. But when we look closer, there's many other permutations which would be ground-breaking too.
The road to the William Webb Ellis Cup is frought with impossibilities for all the teams. For example, no team has ever played two of the big three southern hemisphere teams in the knockout phase and continued on to win the tournament.
France, 1987; England, 1995; France, 1999; NZ, 2003; England, 2007; and Australia, 2011 all won a quarter or semifinal against one of the big three then failed against another.
The only two teams to have won the World Cup having played two of South Africa, New Zealand and Australia (South Africa in 1995, England in 2003) faced one in pool play and the other in the final. No team has played all three at a World Cup yet.
Added to that, every team that has managed to win a quarterfinal against one of the big five (New Zealnd, France, England, Australia or South Africa) has failed to go on to win the tournament.
Only two teams have ever won on home soil, South Africa in 1995, and New Zealand in 1987 and 2011, but every host has made it to the final aside from Wales in 1999 and France, 2007.
This coincides with the fact that at least one finalist has played in the opening match at every World Cup aside from 1999 and 2007. Note now that RWC2015 opens with England vs Fiji.
Here's another one. From 1987 to 1995, no residing Bledisloe Cup holder ever made a Rugby World Cup final and from 1996 to 2011, no residing Tri-Nations champion has ever made a Rugby World Cup final; and only three residing Five or Six Nations champions have done so (France, 1987; England, 1991; and England, 2003).
Remarkably, England in 2003 are the only team who can claim to have effectively been the champions of their respective hemisphere when they won the World Cup.
A fairly obvious statistic is that the finalist with the lowest average points conceded per knockout match tends to win. 1991 and 2007 are the only years where the best defence average in the knockout phase didn't lead to the William Webb Ellis Cup.
As a guide for the more favoured teams, in the years since 2011, the best defensive sides have been NZ (15.8 points conceded per match), SA (17.25), and England (17.8). The other noteworthy defences are Ireland (18.3), Wales (19.3), France (20.2), Australia (23.07), and Argentina (25.6).
And from the slightly odd factoid basket, have you ever considered if the eventual winner of the World Cup had played Australia at any stage during the tournament? 1987, no; 1991, no; 1995, yes; 1999, no; 2003, yes; 2007, no; 2011, yes. Is that a pattern emerging?
How about this one: How many finalists played against Argentina at some stage of each World Cup? 1987, 1 (NZ); 1991, 1 (Aus); 1995, 0; 1999, 1 (Fra); 2003, 1 (Aus); 2007, 1 (SA); 2011, 1 (NZ). Are they a good luck totem or what?
This one takes the cake though: At least one finalist has played against Wales in each of the World Cups, 1987 to 2011, except in 2007. Fiji, the team that qualified second in Pool B ahead of Wales in 2007, played eventual world champions, South Africa, in the quarterfinal. How is that not an omen?
For more, check out the winners qualifying pools:
Pool 3(C) 1987 New Zealand: Italy, Fiji, Argentina
Pool 3(C) 1991 Australia: Wales, Samoa, Argentina
Pool A 1995 South Africa: Australia, Romania, Canada
Pool E 1999 Australia: Ireland, USA, Romania
Pool C 2003 England: South Africa, Samoa, Georgia, Uruguay
Pool A 2007 South Africa: England, Samoa, Tonga, USA
Pool A 2011 New Zealand: France, Tonga, Canada, Japan
No team has ever won from Pools B or D! In fact, only one team has ever made it to the final from either Pool B or D: France, 1987. Let's show this in numbers:
Total Finalists qualifying from Pool A: 6
Total Finalists qualifying from Pool B: 0
Total Finalists qualifying from Pool C: 6
Total Finalists qualifying from Pool D: 1
Total Finalists qualifying from Pool E: 1 (1999)
Now take another look at the pool teams. From 1987 to 1999, at least one team from the winning team's pool play then went on to play in the following World Cup champion's qualifying pool - Argentina, 87 & 91; Australia, 91 & 95 and so on.
The sequence was broken at the turn of the century, but then started again immediately from 2003 and has continued to 2011. So, which RWC2015 pools are the 2011 Pool A teams in?
Japan is in pool B, with South Africa, Samoa, Scotland, and USA.
NZ and Tonga are in pool C with Argentina, Georgia, and Namibia.
France and Canada are in pool D with Ireland, Italy and Romania.
That leaves Pool A, with Australia, England, Wales, Fiji and Uruguay with no teams from RWC 2011 Pool A.
So, if pool B and D never win, and if pool A can't win because it would break the sequence above, does that mean the Rugby World Cup 2015 champion will come from Pool C?
And another particularly left-field fact, a personal one which dawned on me in the days, weeks, and months after RWC2011. Here is my complete Rugby World Cup champion prediction accuracy (and inaccuracy) list:
RWC My Prediction
1987 New Zealand - correct
1991 New Zealand - incorrect
1995 South Africa - correct
1999 New Zealand - incorrect
2003 England - correct
2007 New Zealand - incorrect
2011 New Zealand - correct
That's right, I'm on a roll. Is it mercurial? Is it fate? Do I underestimate Australia continuously? Do I actually know what I'm talking about? I'm not sure, but it's empirical evidence, so it must mean something. So, who am I picking? And how much of all this information do I pay attention to?
Permutations and possibilities. Form and talent. Tactics and depth. Historical relevance and absurd irrelevancy. What's the likeliest outcome?
Does England, as host, win pool A and march into the final? Can South Africa win considering their likely opponents in the quarterfinal will be one of the big five?
Can Ireland make the step up on the big show, win Pool D, set up a likely NZ vs France quarterfinal, and get through to the semifinals for the first time? Or (with apologies) can any of Wales, Fiji, Argentina, Tonga , Samoa, Scotland or Italy cause upsets and turn this rugby punditry into a befuddled mess (if it isn't already)?
With a slightly inflated belief in my rugby knowledge, and probably a slightly inflated belief in the importance of at least a little of the statistics herein, here's my prediction - it'll be an England vs New Zealand final with England to win. Or, history will be made.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/...y-will-be-made
