Completely agree. Let's not go mad and write off NH rugby.
There are many reasons why the NH did not do well. My thoughts for what they are worth:
- England did do poorly but that was no shock to those of us who have long called for a decent coaching team. Predictable if you know a bit about the game and didn't get drawn in by the media hype. England under Lancaster with those selections and tactics would have taken a miracle to win this WC. They won't win the next either if no serious changes are made. Agreed little was learned from 2011, the main lesson of which was "get a decent coaching team with real experience and a winning record".
- Wales were crippled by injury. With all due respect getting out of the group was incredible given the state of the squad.
- Ireland clearly could not deal with the loss of O'Connell and Sexton. It seems to have knocked the stuffing out of them. Even a half strength Ireland could and should have easily dealt with Argentina, who are solid but hardly world-beaters. Ireland were the better team but seemed to crumble under the pressure and had a horrible game.
- Scotland played brilliantly and were hugely unlucky.
- Conditions (dry and pretty warm) have produced pitches unlike you would expect. If there had been pouring rain, sleet and a strong wind at Twickenham yesterday Scotland would have won. Conditions and crucially the firm ground have unexpectedly favoured the SH teams.
- Refs have tended (as ever) to give the rub of the green to the SH teams, no bias or anything silly. I'll tried to say what I think here without impugning anyone. I don't for one second think they're biased, I just think there is a subconscious issue. I think there is a general perception of the superiority of SH rugby: superior handling, running game, speed to the breakdown, etc which means refs without meaning to tend to allow more leeway. For example the AB get away with a lot more offside at the breakdown than other teams, I think it's because the ref will assume they are quicker and more aware so might be able to get to the 9 say quicker than a NH player and hence be less liable to penalise. I can't really explain it but it is there, certainly the rub of the green has seemed to favour the SH, for example I saw three likely yellows for Australia yesterday (a neck roll at a ruck - missed, the passage where they gave away several penalties in their red zone and were clearly killing the ball and the late 'tackle' on Hogg at the end). None given. Hooper was inexplicably not sanctioned for his kamikaze charge into Brown in the England game. Yet Maitland gets a yellow for that? Again I'm not for one second suggesting any cheating or bias just some kind of subconscious effect. It's only marginal to results (except Joubert's boo-boo, less said the better!) but you could easily make a case that Barnes was incredibly harsh on Wales in the first half and they struggled after that with the gas running out and being unable to just hold SA off. Scotland could easily have won barring that penalty call. It's very fine lines.
Rewind a year and lots would have assumed Australia were vanishingly unlikely to get through the group, coach had quit, 7 losses in a row, in a shambles, going to play in unfriendly weather conditions, etc. There were serious questions over SA with their defeat to Argentina and poor all round performances. Both those teams have snuck into the semis in reality and it could easily be Wales-NZ and Ireland-Australia. No real need to panic. England have had the worst cup for any number of reasons and are the only NH team which for me need serious action to be taken, but they've needed it for 12 years and have utterly failed to grasp the nettle so I'm not holding my breath.
