RWC matches without individual threads.

[Sourdust]

I didn't see a proper replay of the Beale tackle. I must say I just thought "Bit high; penalty" watching live, but the one replay shown seemed like it might look bad for Beale but cut away at a crucial point, and I don't think it was shown again.

Uruguay were no angels and Aus copped a few high ones themselves, but they were the greater offenders and four high-shot pens in one half is taking the piss.

[Which Tyler]

Uruguay have really come on. Obviously they won’t win, but they’re having a decent crack. Meanwhile, Australia go hunting heads. 2nd yellow card.

Few others have been let go as well, could have been 3 yellows for persistence (ETA: Beale - now we've actually seen a replay).

Mind you, Cheika has said that he doesn't know what the laws are anymore!

I missed the replay of that Beale tackle - looked like a potential technical red from my first viewing (direct contact, no mitigation). What did the replay show?

That sounds fair - should have been yellow; could easily have been a red - no dip, Beale jumped up into it - would need to see more replays to see if it was head first. Worse than either yellow

Originally, I simply missed it; then they replayed, but stopped before they reached the relevant tackle.

[Puja]

Commentators in the France vs Tonga game are talking utter mince that France won't want to put out their 1st XV against England next week, as "the draw means it's better to finish 2nd in pool C rather than top it." It's an argument that I've heard a few times in the media and it's utter rubbish.

Quite apart from the fact that losing your last match would kill all your momentum, the argument that the other side of the draw is easier seems bananas. Okay, so coming second avoids New Zealand in the semis, but the other side has South Africa who aren't significantly easier. Plus, you've got to get there first and I'd far rather face Australia than Wales on current form. Seems awfully disrespectful to a superb Wales side to think they are the easy option of the two.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Yet another reason I tend to ignore any the commentators are saying

[Galfon]

Great break-out try by Tonga - who are winning the close quarter stuff v France, who look dangerous in loose play.
17 - 14 Fra after an early 10 point lead.
Still 'arf hour left...

[Galfon]

Fra wake up and start playing.
23 - 14 but 2 tries chalked off by TMO for ball-forward errors.
Very French performance.

[Galfon]

23 - 21..Penaud wins restart Ton needed to have a chance.
Good set of players but fewer international matches and less squad time works against them.Fra into last 8.

[Puja]

Just like to take a moment to note that one of my long shot accumulator bets on the rugby has come back for the first ever time! Uruguay +50, England -21, Japan -11, Namibia +70, Tonga +26 at 26/1.

Shame I'm not a big gambler and only put a quid on it really. Mind, the amount I've given bookies in my time means I'm probably better doing penny-ante gambling.

Puja

[paddy no 11]

Tonga could have given the other out half a go earlier

Tonga were more good than France bad imo

[Mellsblue]

Rugby World Cup final more likely for Eddie Jones’s men if they lose

Alex Lowe, Deputy Rugby Correspondent, Tokyo


England’s chances of winning the World Cup will improve if they lose to Argentina or France over the next two weekends and finish second in pool C, according to statistical analysis conducted for The Times.

Wales’s victory over Australia on Sunday confirmed England’s two potential routes to the final in Yokohama on November 2. If England win the pool they expect to face Australia in the quarter-finals. Win that and they could be looking at a semi-final against New Zealand and a final against South Africa.

If England were to finish second in the pool, their probable route would be Wales in the last eight and then the Springboks before meeting the All Blacks in the final.

England’s chances of winning the World Cup are 14.5 per cent if they win the pool and 16.4 per cent if they finish second, according to a statistical model developed by Rugby Vision that simulated the tournament one million times.

Eddie Jones’s team are almost twice as likely to reach the final if they finish second in the pool (41.3 per cent compared with 22.8), on account of moving to the other side of the draw.


“The reason for this is simple: the fact that New Zealand will most likely be the semi-final opponents if England win pool C,” Simon Gleave, the head of sports analysis at Gracenote, said.

The Rugby Vision system, which calculates the expected score margin and probability of each team winning, was designed by Niven Winchester, a principal research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a senior fellow at Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.

The model is based on a bespoke ratings system, from 70 years of international results, placing more weight on recent matches and accounting for the relative strength of the opposition.

Before their win against Canada, New Zealand were given a 56.9 per cent chance of winning the World Cup, with England second favourites on 14.5 per cent, based on the probability that they will win pool C.

The algorithm used by Rugby Vision does not account for variables within the tournament such as weather or refereeing decisions, but it does reflect injuries and squad depth.

ENGLAND’S CHANCES
If they win their pool...
Semi-final 72.8%
Final 22.8%
Champions 14.5%

If they come second in pool...
Semi-final 67.8%
Final 41.3%
Champions 16.4%

Stats from Rugby Vision

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rugb ... -hrxqdghck

[Puja]

Load of bollocks. Assuming that Wales are a given in the quarters and worrying about the semis.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Load of bollocks. Assuming that Wales are a given in the quarters and worrying about the semis.

Puja

You’re Michael Gove and I claim my £10.

[Puja]

Load of bollocks. Assuming that Wales are a given in the quarters and worrying about the semis.

Puja

You’re Michael Gove and I claim my £10.

First - ouch, I have feelings
Second - huh? I don't get it.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Load of bollocks. Assuming that Wales are a given in the quarters and worrying about the semis.

Puja

You’re Michael Gove and I claim my £10.

First - ouch, I have feelings
Second - huh? I don't get it.

Puja

[Puja]

Yeah, not sure I count sports statistical analysis commissioned by the Times as experts in anything. Especially when their genius analysis machine has come up with the outlandish prediction of "New Zealand will probably win."

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Yeah, not sure I count sports statistical analysis commissioned by the Times as experts in anything. Especially when their genius analysis machine has come up with the outlandish prediction of "New Zealand will probably win."

Puja

No, you’re right. ‘Sports statistical’ analysts won’t be able to analyse which route to the final is statistically the easiest in a given sport.

[Digby]

The amount of stats spat out now at the top level in rugby is astonishing. Though how people are using that, and indeed if they're using it varies hugely

[Mellsblue]

The amount of stats spat out now at the top level in rugby is astonishing. Though how people are using that, and indeed if they're using it varies hugely

All true but dismissing them as not being experts when the clearly are experts is a bit strange. By all means question context etc and don’t just swallow it as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but don’t call it ‘a load of bollocks’ when it’s a statistical model devised by a ‘principal research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a senior fellow at Motu Economic and Public Policy Research‘ as opposed to an opinion by us bunch of amateur keyboard warriors on here.
I mean, if we’re doing that, we need to accept that all financial modelling is bollocks and that Trump is right on climate change.

[Mikey Brown]

I figured the issue was they seem to be assuming that losing a game will have no influence at all on how the team plays.

No team has ever won after losing a pool game, right? Surely that’s a relevant stat too.

[Mellsblue]

I figured the issue was they seem to be assuming that losing a game will have no influence at all on how the team plays.

No team has ever won after losing a pool game, right? Surely that’s a relevant stat too.

Fair enough. I can accept that, assuming that’s not catered for in the modelling. That’s a big difference from just saying it’s a load of bollocks. I’m not going to die on the hill of saying the analysis is infallible but, well, I’ve made my point.

[Puja]

The amount of stats spat out now at the top level in rugby is astonishing. Though how people are using that, and indeed if they're using it varies hugely

All true but dismissing them as not being experts when the clearly are experts is a bit strange. By all means question context etc and don’t just swallow it as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but don’t call it ‘a load of bollocks’ when it’s a statistical model devised by a ‘principal research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a senior fellow at Motu Economic and Public Policy Research‘ as opposed to an opinion by us bunch of amateur keyboard warriors on here.
I mean, if we’re doing that, we need to accept that all financial modelling is bollocks and that Trump is right on climate change.

...okay, fair point (he said, grudgingly).

I just don't like the assumptions that punditry are making that we should be worrying about who we meet in the semi-final. That's lovely and all, and I don't doubt that we'd possibly stand a better chance against South Africa than New Zealand, but a great semi-final means sod all if we're kicked out in the quarters by facing the side ranked 2nd in the world, as opposed to the side ranked 6th. And no statistical analysis takes into account how chippy the Welsh get when they feel they're being underestimated and that we're being arrogant.

Although I will note that 90% of financial modelling is bollocks and climate change is science not predictive statistics.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

The amount of stats spat out now at the top level in rugby is astonishing. Though how people are using that, and indeed if they're using it varies hugely

All true but dismissing them as not being experts when the clearly are experts is a bit strange. By all means question context etc and don’t just swallow it as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but don’t call it ‘a load of bollocks’ when it’s a statistical model devised by a ‘principal research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a senior fellow at Motu Economic and Public Policy Research‘ as opposed to an opinion by us bunch of amateur keyboard warriors on here.
I mean, if we’re doing that, we need to accept that all financial modelling is bollocks and that Trump is right on climate change.

...okay, fair point (he said, grudgingly).

I just don't like the assumptions that punditry are making that we should be worrying about who we meet in the semi-final. That's lovely and all, and I don't doubt that we'd possibly stand a better chance against South Africa than New Zealand, but a great semi-final means sod all if we're kicked out in the quarters by facing the side ranked 2nd in the world, as opposed to the side ranked 6th. And no statistical analysis takes into account how chippy the Welsh get when they feel they're being underestimated and that we're being arrogant.

Although I will note that 90% of financial modelling is bollocks and climate change is science not predictive statistics.

Puja

I do actually agree with you on the rugby. I was merely posting what some clever dude at MIT had come up with. I didn’t actually offer an opinion when I posted it. There is no way I’d want us to face Wales in the QF and, assuming the only result deemed as success is winning the thing, which is what it should be, you might as well lose to NZ in the sf as the final.

I also agree that financial modelling turns out to be mostly bollocks but it is based on something more than an opinion. Climate change science, as far as future events are concerned, is based on modelling, I’d imagine founded on the same principles as what we’re discussing, albeit in a different scientific field to rugby analytics and financial analytics, obvs. It’s called modelling for a reason, it’s their best very, very well educated guess not a definite.

[Digby]

Are people that worried about facing Wales? They're a very limited side missing the one player who they'd actually pick who can pass. Their one out play is in fairness quite nippy as far as one out rugby goes, they work hard and they tend to be disciplined. But christ if we can't beat Wales we deserve as much as we received in 2015

[Mellsblue]

Not overly but it’s all relative. They’re better than Australia and will believe they can beat us, see 6N 2019.

[Digby]

I said somewhere else Wales are better in defence and worse in attack than Australia, you takes your pick you makes your choice, either could beat England on the day. Wales are maybe more of a known quantity in advance