Andy Capostagno Rugby World Cup
The worst thing that could have happened to the Rugby World Cup duly occurred on Saturday at Twickenham. For an hour England and their fans in the stands and among the media were confident that the ogres from New Zealand could be beaten. At 16-16 northern hemisphere rugby really was back on track and benefiting from the kind of sustained roar that normally only accompanies the take-off of a jumbo jet. And then Jonah Lomu got the ball.
Lomu’s try has been called the defining moment of the tournament, but there might be more to that statement than many will admit. It might actually be the definition of the gulf that still divides the two hemispheres. England have built another of the great packs they have specialised in down the years, they have found a reasonable successor to the retired Rob Andrew at fly-half, and yet a surfeit of quality ball for the home side produced one rather fortunate try from a grubber kick.
With less than 40% of the ball, New Zealand conjured one great try from Jeff Wilson, a Gulliver on Lilliput one from Lomu and an opportunistic one from Byron Kelleher. They might have had three or four more had it not been for some desperate defence. Put simply, the two sides were playing different games; England were trying to control the ball, New Zealand were trying to use it.
There is undoubtedly more than one way to skin a cat, and the English way works more often than not against their more familiar opponents, but by beating England so soundly at their headquarters in front of a fervently chauvinist crowd, the All Blacks may have done irreparable harm to the tournament.
As long as England were genuine contenders the British media would hype the World Cup to the heavens. Now that they have been revealed as paper tigers, the tournament has already been slipping down TV bulletins, sometimes falling off the bottom completely, and coming a distant second in the newspapers to the fact that the English soccer team has qualified for Euro 2000 through the back door.
It has already been suggested that all is not lost for England since they also lost to the All Blacks at Twickenham in the pool section of the 1991 tournament. But that argument fails to address the fact that defeat then gave England a quarter-final against France, a semi-final against Scotland and a final against Australia.
This time, to reach the final they have to beat South Africa and Australia in successive weeks before, in all likelihood, having to beat New Zealand in the final in Cardiff. It is, to put it mildly, a daunting road, akin perhaps to exploring the more esoteric areas of the Wild Coast in a Ford Fiesta.
But why all this talk of England? Before the tournament began there were those who would tell you that all four home unions and France had a chance to win this World Cup. Not now. Against the Springboks, Scotland competed for the length of time John Leslie stayed on the field. Without the kilted Kiwi’s influence they fell apart.
Against Australia, Ireland were simply woeful, lacking even their traditional values of organised chaos, reliant instead on one man, Keith Wood, to beat the Wallabies on his own. Australia, it must be said, were not much better, but 23-3 reveals the fact of the matter, which is that had the game been played anywhere other than Lansdown Road it might have been 50-3.
France have been desperately poor, struggling against Canada in their opening game and then needing an hour to subdue a Namibian team which earlier this year lost to North West in Potchefstroom. There are genuine fears that they will find the challenge of Fiji in Toulouse on Saturday a bridge too far. Defeat there would mean a quarter-final play-off against England at Twickenham, a prospect so ghastly that it has not even been mentioned by the local media.
The one nation which has so far come out smelling of roses is Wales, enmeshed with Argentina, Samoa and Japan in the most even of all the groups. There is a reason why it is the most even, however: it is mediocre. Wales may be on a 10-match unbeaten streak, including South Africa, France and England among their victims, but the acid test will come when they meet Australia in the quarter- finals.
If Graham Henry can plot victory for his team there, then he may as well pick out a set of wings and a halo from a Cardiff fancy dress shop. But even victory against the Wallabies would not guarantee a final berth, for it would merely mean a trip to Twickenham to play either England or, much more likely, South Africa.
Ah, South Africa. Where do the world champions sit in the pecking order right now? Well, despite the flop against Spain at Murrayfield on Sunday, they must now be regarded as second favourites, behind the All Blacks. At the moment, and taking it for granted that the Springboks will beat Uruguay on Friday and the All Blacks do the same to Italy, it is looking more and more likely that the November 6th final will be between the same two teams which contested the last one at Ellis Park.
It is impossible to believe that the All Blacks can be beaten by anyone left in their half of the draw, lacking as it does England, South Africa and Australia. Therefore, it comes down to a question of who they will play in the final.
South Africa are capable of playing badly, but not so badly that they will lose to England in Paris. The English will have played their socks off just to reach the Stade de France, in a midweek play-off against either France or Fiji. They will be on neutral territory against a team who will be rested and ready. The only things South Africa have to fear is a little rust and a lot of overconfidence.
Considering the way they entered this tournament, with heads low after a winter of discontent, overconfidence should be something the Springboks can deal with. After that they need to beat Australia or Wales, again on neutral ground. It’s been said before, but it’s worth reiterating: South Africa have been given a scandalously easy draw in this World Cup. How the English must envy them.