Who do you think "unfairly" qualified for the QF's over Samoa and Scotland?
IMHO NZRT, Saffers, Leek Eaters, Spud Bashers, Men in Gold all legitimate QF contenders.
Likewise Soap Dodgers, Le Frogs, and Los Pumas have played pretty ordinary rugby but ultimately winning footy and probably can count themselves a little lucky to still be there.
The Haggis's only played one good game, and they lacked the killer punch in that one.
Samoa and Tonga were probably unlucky, but this is the world cup tournament not a popularity contest. You need to have discipline, consistency, and the ability to grind out a win. As much as I loved their performance, they didn't have it.
If the Scots and Samoans had progressed to QF's by being in another pool, at the expense of one of my 3 "lucky to be there" teams, I wouldn't see them advancing to SF.
I think the "fairest" QF matches based on form would have been
1. NZRT v Les Frog
2. Spud Basher v Soap Dodger
3. Leek Eaters v Men in Gold
4. Saffer v Puma
with winner 1 v Winner 2 and Winner 3 v Winner 4 in the SF.
Biggest problem with all this theory and "form team" speculation is that players do not always listen to that.
At one level the Soap Dodgers v Les Frogs QF is the "easiest", and the winner doesn't deserve to progress to SF stage, however both teams have the depth of talent and ability to rise above their mediocrity displayed so far. The Soap Dodgers, know how to grind out a victory, and that is what RWC is all about.
At knockout stage it is not about winning by 30 points. It is about simply winning. 1 point is enough. 6-5 (2 pk vs 1 try) is the same victory as a 42-0 (6 t/6c vs 0) victory.
It is a brave fool that writes any of the teams off that have reached QF stage. Past form is nothing. The 80 minutes whistle to whistle is everything and in the Land of the Darkness this time of the year, the weather will be a factor.