Now that we’ve had a moment to draw breath, recover from the unusual jet lag induced by not travelling any further than from the lounge to the fridge and return, and realise that there is now a numb void in our lives, we also have time to contemplate on some key issues from RWC 2015.
One of the most discussed and most emotional issues was the allocation of teams to the pools. Australia’s pool quickly became the “Pool of Death” and a superficial look at the teams would suggest the epithet was a fair one. But was it really? Now that we have a tournament result, we can put that in the context of the pools, and see what we might learn.
Methodology
I used World Rugby’s rankings, on the basis that they have had a constant methodology and should therefore remove some of the emotion when compiling the stats. Worth noting that these rankings started immediately prior to the 2003 RWC in Australia.
So, using the rankings, I have analysed the composition of each RWC pool based on both ranking points and ranking position, and I have done this using two dates for each pool – the date of the announcement of each pool, and the date of the commencement of the tournament. The rankings are renewed weekly on a Monday, so I have therefore taken the rankings as they stand at the Monday immediately before the key date.
I have NOT adjusted the rankings during the course of each tournament, because we’re looking at what each team is facing from the start of the tournament, and to be honest, if I want that sort of pain, there are more exciting ways to satisfy those sado-masochistic moments.
I also recognise that at the date of the pools being drawn that the qualifiers were not yet known. However, those that eventually did qualify have had their rankings taken from the pool announcement date. Finally, given the age of the rankings, it means this analysis can only apply to RWC 2007, 2011 and 2015, but that should be enough for the moment.
Findings
So, what do we discover? Try these little gems…
- Weakest pool as at the date of the draw: Pool C 2015 (NZ/Argentina/Tonga/Georgia/Namibia), with Pool B 2007 (Australia/Wales/Canada/Fiji/Japan) next weakest. Two semi-finalists in the first pool, zip in the other.
- Strongest pool as at the date of the draw: Pool A 2007. Daylight second. With average ranking points of 76.81 and an average ranking of 8.2. South Africa/England/Samoa/USA/Tonga. Note the presence of both finalists in this pool.
- Biggest change from the date of the draw to the start of the tournament: Pool A 2015. Daylight would be pleased to get second. Average ranking and position at draw: 76.01/10.4. At the start of the tournament: 79.1/7.8. Interestingly, the next biggest change was the aforementioned Pool A 2007, but in the other direction! By the start of the tournament it had become 74.85/10.2.
- Weakest pool as at the start of the tournament: Pool D 2015 (Ireland/France/Italy/Romania/Canada). Despite being smokies about 18 months out from the tournament, Ireland once again failed to make it past the quarters, and now appear to have inherited the 600 pound gorilla previously co-habiting around the neck of the travelling All Blacks World Cup squads of yesteryear. Meanwhile, the Frogs were monstered by the ABs, who not only flick-passed the aforementioned simian to the leprechauns, but also managed to exorcise a few red, white and blue demons at the same time. Next weakest by a short half cauliflower ear is Pool C 2011 (Australia/Ireland/Italy/USA/Russia), which had its fair share of drama, but ended up providing third place in the tournament.
- Strongest pool as at the start of the tournament: Pool A 2015 (rating 7.8). No other pool with a single digit ranking EXCEPT for Pool A 2011 which had 8.8 (NZ/France/Tonga/Japan/Canada) and, like Pool A in 2007, produced both finalists. One for the trivia buffs.
All this provided interesting background, and confirmed what our gut had told us – Pool A 2015 was a toughie. But within the context of the tournament, exactly how tough? Just how hard were the teams in each pool? I then looked at the top teams in each pool (Australia/South Africa/New Zealand/Ireland) and looked at the ratings of the teams they had to play.
Some more gems:
- Pool A – 77.21/9.3. The hardest pool for the top team across the three RWCs I analysed and the only one with a single figure ranking.
- Pool B – 73.36/12.5. The first time a team with three wins hasn’t exited a pool – rankings of 3, 10, 12, 13 and 15. Very even.
- Pool C – 71.32/13.8. Cruisin’. Third easiest pool across the three RWCs analysed here and NZ was in the easiest of all (2007).
- Pool D – 70.78/14.0. A lightweight pool, not only within the tournament but by historical rankings too.
I had opined prior to the tournament to all who would listen (and plenty who wouldn’t), that the potential risk for New Zealand was coming out of a weak pool, they would be lacking in match hardness, and once they met a hard team in the play-offs, they would lack condition and tournament toughness. Whereas Australia would be match hardened and battle ready.
My theory was right but my pool was wrong – I think this was Ireland’s undoing. They had a very soft pool and paid the price against a rampant and toughened Argentina. Perhaps had NZ had a tougher quarter-final my theory may have been correct, but France didn’t get that email. The South Africans almost did though, and perhaps South African teams of old (as opposed to this team of old South Africans) may have seized the opportunity.
As it was, they ran the ABs close, and let’s not forget New Zealand’s Man of the Match, Bryan Habana, who not only gifted three points, spent ten in the bin, but also gave Dan Carter a second chance at a conversion he had just missed. He didn’t miss the second time, and NZ won by two…..
What about us? Did our pool make us battle hardened? Or come the Final, were we fatigued? The key stat for me – tackles made. Australia made 843 throughout the tournament, second only to South Africa (913). NZ made 665, fifth in the tournament and beaten by the likes of Scotland, who played two fewer matches. So, we worked 25%+ harder.
Lessons
Firstly, we should be immensely proud of the Wallabies – superb in so many ways, and they represented us all in a way which we truly appreciate – a fantastic platform for growth.
Secondly – we had the toughest of pools which in the end meant we needed to work harder. So fatigue beat us, as of course did the All Blacks (congratulations to them too). It was indeed the Pool of Death, with death coming quickly for some, more slowly for others.
Thirdly, the numbers don’t lie – World Rugby needs to change how the pools are allocated, and more importantly, when they are allocated, for the good of all in rugby.
