World Cup weekend for the ages, so what now for the final four?

TVNZ rugby experts Scotty Stevenson and Patrick McKendry discuss the dramatic quarter-finals in France and wonder how the Pumas will challenge the All Blacks.

Scotty, after a fairly predictable pool stage, we’ve just witnessed a World Cup quarter-final weekend for the ages – Argentina upsetting Wales, the All Blacks outlasting Ireland in an astonishing performance from both teams, Fiji getting very close indeed to England and the hosts knocked out by a South African team that appears genetically designed for knockout rugby. Casting your mind back, can you think of a better World Cup weekend?

SS: In a word, no.

We all made a fuss about the draw and inarguably we got what should have been semifinals a week ahead of schedule. In saying that, this weekend did feel like an early Christmas for the sport. Yes, rugby was the winner.

The pool stages are problematic in that they rarely serve up anything fulfilling. This was different feast entirely. It was full fat, acid, salt, and sugar. Think about the aggregate margin in these four matches: 23 points. Averaged out, a converted try the difference. It was a degustation of joy and despair.

Rugby needed a weekend like this, even if the host nation and the world number one side feel they did not.

Which brings us to a question, Pat. What memory of this weekend will live rent-free in your head the longest?

PM: I was in the privileged position of being at the Stade de France to watch the All Blacks beat Ireland so the highlight would have to be from that match.

The defensive effort in that last six minutes will live long in the memory, but so too will the way Sam Cane pummelled anything in green before that, Richie Mo’unga’s little show and go to break through for Will Jordan’s try, even Anton Lienert-Brown’s astonishing cameo off the bench when he lined up Irishmen from what seemed like halfway across the field and folded them like laundry.

It was also one of the most accurate and disciplined performances I’ve ever seen from the All Blacks. Their task now of course is to reach a similar level for Argentina.

What was your highlight of the weekend?

SS: That’s a lifetime of highlights in that one match. A truly special performance from a team that looks like it is finally resembling something like the finished product. Ireland deserves many plaudits for raising its performance ceiling, but the All Blacks took the Great Glass Elevator right through it.

I would have to say my highlight was watching Rassie Erasmus’s brain work against France. He stacked a bench with World Cup winners, made changes early, rorted the system with the Pieter-Steph du Toit HIA breather (allowing Duane Vermeulen to return to the field) and completely changed his team’s strategy for the final 35 minutes of the match.

This is a team that subbed Siya Kolisi for Deon Fourie for heaven’s sake. And still won. The Springboks finished the game with exactly the team on the field to finish a game. It was breathtaking coaching complexity and every player bought in. That’s what makes the Springboks so incredibly hard to top in tournament play. Oh, and Cheslin Kolbe charging down a conversion and Damian Willemse calling for a scrum from a fair catch? Those are Test match unicorn moments.

And now all the pre-tournament favourite predictions have been torn to shreds. Which of France and Ireland would you say screwed this up most, and why?

PM: I thought Ireland played extremely well and could easily have won had Jordie Barrett not been so aware of that late lineout drive threat.

It has to be France for me because the composure they showed in coming back to beat the All Blacks in the opening game was conspicuous by its absence against the Boks.

They had some outstanding individuals, including hooker Peato Mauvaka who must be considered one of the best in the world now, and halfback Antoine Dupont, but I thought their game management was poor overall.

They were too loose and appeared to want to get across the line on every phase rather than build pressure. It allowed the Boks back into it. I was a bit disappointed by them and from a purely selfish point of view I think the World Cup will be poorer for their failure.

And yes, Rassie appears to be operating on a different level… but as you know, Scotty, I’m a pure rugby romantic and would prefer the players play what they see rather than stop and go at the behest of a bloke holding traffic lights in a grandstand.

I remember just over 10 years ago sitting in the Buenos Aires office of the great former Pumas first-five Hugo Porta and hearing him sigh with disappointment at how flair in the game was being crushed by strict game plans and orders from on high. It’s all gone to a new level now.

We’ve both enjoyed watching Fiji in France… do you feel they were a little unlucky against England? I’m referring to refereeing inconsistencies here which always seem to hurt the tier two nations the most. I’m quickly widening the scope of this question but we saw Englishman Owen Farrell merely penalised for his intentional knock-on against Fiji, All Black Aaron Smith sinbinned for his against Ireland, and Eben Etzebeth not even penalised for what appeared to be a similar offence against France. Thoughts?

SS: I hate the modern-day rulings on that law. I’ve long said that it is too punitive on the defensive team. An intercept attempt is a legitimate defensive play, and most intercept plays are initially made by sticking out a single paw. We don’t have time to delve too deeply into this, suffice to say referees have made a rod for their own back on this one, and the fact three plays are seen differently by three different officials is proof enough of that.

As for Fiji, I agree that superficially they, like other Pasifika nations and second tier sides, seem to get it rough. But I’m going to explore Hanlon’s Razor on this one: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. The top tier referees should have more exposure to tier two teams. Especially in the lead up to major tournaments. They each have so much intel on the top nations but next to nothing on the others. It stands to reason then that they will notice unfamiliar things for than familiar. That is stupidity on the part of World Rugby, not the individual officials.

Also, Fiji had their chances but showed little of their genuine attacking menace. And why Semi Radradra was not playing midfield astounds me. That is a selection mystery for the ages.

So… All Blacks taking down Argentina is already being touted as fait accompli. Fair?

PM: It’s certainly fair to say that many will see it as a fait accompli. The All Blacks will be big favourites after that performance against Ireland.

I’m tempted to say the Pumas are a dangerous beast as evidenced by their success against New Zealand in Christchurch last year but I can’t see where they can consistently hurt the All Blacks on Saturday. It’s worth thinking back to four years ago, however, when the All Blacks failed to prepare properly for the semifinal against an England team that bullied them from the first whistle.

The All Blacks had to dig deep to beat Ireland – as deep as they ever have – so their recovery must be high on detail, and, initially at least, low on intensity. They do have a big advantage though in that they are already in Paris whereas Argentina must travel up from Marseille and will miss a day of preparation. Our old mate Michael Cheika isn’t too happy about that. In other words, I would be very surprised if the All Blacks don’t progress to the final.

How do you feel about this match-up? You were more confident than me about the All Blacks beating Ireland – are the tea leaves falling the same way this week?

SS: I’m a coffee man, and I drink my coffee black.

There will be plenty of amateur psychology this week regarding the All Blacks’ ability to “get back up” after what must have been an emotionally draining performance, but I’m not buying that. The Ireland win is proof they are a team once again on the rise.

Cheika airing his grievances this early in the piece is just grist for the mill. The Pumas are not a powerhouse, and one can’t see any area of the game in which they can hope to have the ascendency. I realise it’s sudden death, but this All Blacks team has been through enough fire to burn off any hint of complacency. All they’ll be wanting to do is work through another gear because I know they’ll already be thinking about South Africa.

Who will surely eviscerate England. Right?

PM: Yes – England’s place in the semifinals as the Northern Hemisphere’s sole representative is… incongruous given their recent form. They wobbled against Fiji before stumbling over the line and one would assume they will be a mere speed bump on the Boks’ journey to the final.

Do the All Blacks change much in terms of personnel? One would assume Mark Telea will slot straight back in on the left wing.

SS: Now that he has been publicly humiliated, I’m sure there’s nothing he would like more than the chance to create talking points of a different nature. I’m sure Cam Roigard is in a similar dinghy.

Those two aside, it feels like the balance is right for the All Blacks as they stand. There may be a temptation to make some minor changes, given the physical demands of the past weekend, but those would likely be cosmetic. Damian McKenzie will be itching for game time and will surely see some in this semifinal.

I don’t claim to know all the science around workloads and the bench ephemera, but if you don’t need to change a winning formula…

Last question: There’s a good chance Matthieu Raynal gets the All Blacks match. Could an appointment like that have an impact?

PM: Yes, of course, but the All Blacks have played under Monsieur Raynal a lot and will know his quirks, such as his penchant for efficient time keeping – as the Wallabies discovered to their surprise in Melbourne last year.

Ian Foster and company would likely be happy with Raynal. If they play with the accuracy they did against Ireland, they should be happy with anyone.