Sharpening my neon claws

A wise man once said, "gambling is the finest thing a person can do, if he's good at it". Ok, so it was Krusty The Clown's accountant but still. A lot of people think gambling is down to luck, which certainly plays a part, as it does often in sport. Another wise man, (actually it was former Cleveland Indians baseball-hitter guy Lefty Gomez) who said, "I'd rather be lucky than good". The thing is, that luck is often an illusion. As another wise man, (golf-zombie Gary Player) once said, "The more I practice the luckier I get". But often practicing gambling is kind of a bad idea, don't you agree? I can't condone it, since yesterday I realised two things about myself that I don't particularly like. The first is that, having bet €20 on England to beat Ireland just to prove a point (and indeed, to prove that point to nobody but myself), I realise that I should probably get out of Betfair. I only won another 20 quid, despite having never bet €20 on anything before. I'm not telling you what the realisation was.

There is a lot of money to win in gambling. Paddy Power, for example, started his bookies having originally made a fortune in gambling. The social responsibility aspect of it comes into the fact that while winning is addictive, losing is motivational. My right-wing sensibility manifests itself in the fact that I generally think people shouldn't be let make any decisions of their own. Because people are stupid and don't know how to do the sensible thing. Most people who lose at gambling think that the fact that they like Spurs means that Spurs will win their match with Manchester City. The emotional investment is controlling. Or they see Leeds at 6/1 to win the Challenge Cup (in a cup final the odds should really be 50:50 considering how tight they are), and consider that throwing a few quid down will give a big reward. That is, they look at the profit and ignore the market and, indeed, sporting aspect of considering why a team would have such high odds: so many people have backed one team that the bookie considers how much he can afford to lose on the favourite against the potential payout on the underdog. Basically, its a good day for the bookies when the underdog wins, because high odds means fewer people to pay out to. They might have to pay out more, but to fewer punters.

But there is a lot of money to be won. For a start, one of the first thing that a more persistant gambler will learn is that sometimes you have to back the favourite. This is actually, I think quite risky, as I have explained, because the payout is small (meaning you need a bigger stake for a smaller reward) and the personal risks are high (if the favourite loses, the house wins). The other thing is that cold hard logic can win you 2 out of every 3 bets. I know this because that's my average. And cold hard logic is my currency.

So, with that in mind, and because I'm trying to decide what to do about the Rugby World Cup, I'll give you a glimpse into the dark arts of the Gamblor. I have a system. It's nothing sinister. There's nothing fancy involved. In fact it's so simple that I'm actually going to do it in real time here, from scratch. It's very simple. There are two aspects: gut and logic. Gut is having a feeling. Alone it's no good, but it works for me (2/3s of the time). The other aspect is very simple too: team sheets, groups, match-ups, form and environment. So lets have a look.

There are 20 teams in the RWC, coming from 4 groups of 5. There are 10 established rugby nations. Immediately, half of the contests are gone from the equation. If they have no heritage, they have no experience, no grass-roots coaching, often have cast-offs and mercenaries and simply can't win. Won't win. So, the 10 teams we are left with are the Tri-Nations teams (Oz, All Blacks, Bokke), Argentina, and the 6 Nations teams (Ireland, England, Wales, Scotland, France and Italy). Scotland, Italy and Argentina can't win it, they haven't got the temperament, the tradition or squads to do so. So that leaves 7. That took 5 minutes.

So, now out of these 7, lets have a quick look at how they are playing. Wales were poor in the 6 Nations, and outside of Wales aren't usually that good. Their squad is mediocre, their coach, Warren Gatland, a bit of a tinkerer, which is bad. They also have a tradition of losing to Pacific Island teams. On the other hand, they are from a rugby country. But I can't see it (that's my gut talking) based on players, form, everything, so goodbye Wales.

Now to use the gut. Ireland won’t win it, not good enough. Simply in terms of talent and coaching, Ireland is behind most of the teams in this tournament. A solid core of talent exists, but they are supplanted by fossils who are picked despite seasons of diminishing returns. Some mandatory picks, like Donnacha O’Callaghan, Keith Earls or Dennis Leamy, have never shown anything remotely near international standard. Earls has been an utter disaster but he still was picked ahead of Luke Fitzgerald. Luke might be a shadow of the player he was before he broke his leg, but despite forcing the odd pass, he has shown the ability, call it natural ability, to break the line and cause serious damage. And he’s a finisher. Earls is good at falling off tackles and kicking the ball to the other team when a simple pass would put a team-mate under the posts. But I digress. Lets have less Munster rugby and more not betting on Ireland. Oops, another digression.

Now. That leaves just five teams: Australia, England, France, All Blacks and South Africa. On a game-by-game basis, you might get a fuller idea of a path to the final, etc. That’s because, a simple thing to remember, you should never bet on a match before you see the teamsheets. So we’ll have to do more sleuthing and gut-trusting (*giggles*) from this far out. That means what? Break out a calculator and an adding machine? No, son. Simple for/against tagging. Lets go.

Australia

+Quade Cooper

+Win when it matters

+Can impose their game on anyone

+Digby Ioane

+Rocky Elsom

+Confident after Tri-nations win

-Small pack

-Won’t beat All Blacks twice in a row

-Kamikaze rugby won’t beat a structured team

England

+Johnny Wilkinson

+Enormous team

+Structured and imposing

+Deep squad

+6Nations champions, but with the extra motivation of not winning the Grand Slam

+Manu Tuilagi

+Great pack

+Disciplined

+7,000 miles away from the abhorrent English media

-Shower of benders

-Coach is a monobrowed bastard

-Lord Mike Tindall

-Boring and lacking in a plan B

-Losing Grand Slam match shows lack of cutting edge when it matters

-Occasionally roll-over and play dead

France

+Most talented and dynamic team in the competition

+Play some unstoppable rugby (when they’re bothered)

+Most dynamic pack

+Can grind out a win if they need to

+Win when it counts

+Always beat the All Blacks

-Would be even more talented if they had brought their best 15

-Coach is a lunatic

-As likely to win by 30 as they are to lose by 30

-Temperament is patchy at best

-Poor discipline

All Blacks

+Dan Carter

+Usually the best coached team in the world

+Like to throw the ball around

+Impose themselves

+Home advantage

+Sonny Bill Williams

+Richie McCaw

+Apparently immune to the laws of rugby union

-Second string is pretty rubbish

-Revert to type when behind

+/-Incredibly undisciplined at the breakdown (but get away with it most of the time)

-Weight of expectation

-Biggest chokers in world sport

South Africa

+Biggest pack

+Seasoned and experienced

+Return with a lot of the team that won the cup 4 years ago

+Jaques Fourie

+Most imposing team in the sport

+Always have a plan B

-Are playing terribly at the moment

-Coach is an absolute joke

-Morne Steyn doesn’t do much beyond kicking goals

-Their old guys are pretty fuckin old

-No team has ever retained the cup

Right. So by the above basis, we have to make a decision. First of all, it must be noted that gut also comes into this part, but playing a lesser role: not all + or – points are equal in value. For example, the All Blacks have the massive minus point of being “Biggest chokers in world sport”. I say this because it is categorically true. No team exhibits the form they do in the years between world cups, yet they have yet to win the cup in the professional era, while South Africa have won half of the world cups they’ve played in, and poor forgotten Australia have played in more finals and won more cups than its more vaulted neighbor. England has contested both of the last two finals, winning one. All Blacks haven’t even made the final since 1995. All those great players (Howlett, Cullen, Carter, Williams, McCaw, Smith etc) have never actually played at the pinnacle of rugby. This year they might, but my gut says that the weight of expectation and the chokers tag, especially since they lost the Tri-Nations final last weekend (and badly), tells me to forget it. That and the fact that their price is too low to make the risk worth my while.

South Africa is a tough one to rule out entirely. They are THE world cup team. After the group stage was half over 4 years ago I told all and sundry that no one was going to beat them. Simply, they are the toughest, most disciplined and structured team in the world. They just batter teams around the pitch sometimes, then at others fling it wide and go around you. It can be completely unstoppable. However, the current coach is a moron, and the way that they are playing is too one-dimensional at the moment. How they can persist with Morné Steyn at 10 and Jon Smit at 2 is insane, when Patrick Lambie or Butch James are far superior (and they can let Francois Steyn, Ruan Pienaar or Butch James kick goals, since that’s Morné only forte) to Morné and Bismarck Du Plessis is the best hooker in the world. Silly. So it’s doubtful they’ll become the first team to ever retain the cup.

So what about England and Aus? Aus are the Tri-Nations champions, England the 6Nations champions. That’s coincidental. Aus has had a good year, with Queensland winning the Super 15 too. A lot of this is down to Quade Cooper, who is a genius at 10, albeit in the mercurial, chaotic sense where anything can happen, rather than the smooth game controlling genius who can get the backs moving or get the other team retreating. I mean, he’s more Freddie Michalak than Johnny Sexton. England has had a good year, and is capable of beating any of the Southern Hemisphere sides. They are also a smart cup rugby team, winning at any cost. But then again, they got blown away by Ireland in the Grand Slam match on March 19^th (worst day of my life by the way). Perhaps that was an aberration. They are gritty and grindy. That’s something that World Cup winning captain and disrespectful gormless Neanderthal/coach Martin Johnson has instilled. It’s a pretty close call between England and Aus.

Then you bring in France. As unpredictable as they are and then aren’t and then are again, they can and frequently do beat everyone and everything, occasionally themselves. There were plenty of surprises in their squad, but it still managed to be mightily impressive. And if one man goes down they have usually got two more to take their place (like Stalin). They can play kamikaze rugby, which is pretty but suicidal, or grind out a win by continually booting the ball through the uprights like a malfunctioning Newton’s cradle. I can barely parse how much I hate French rugby, but you know, this might be their year. Having the advantage of playing All Blacks in the group will stand to them well. Everyone else who plays them will do so in a do-or-die.

So lets look at the draw for the three teams that are left. Aus has it worst of all, with the likelihood that they will make it to the Semi-final without having to play anyone at all (Ireland and Wales? Really?). That means they will either face France or All Blacks cold, and they won’t beat either of them (they defeated both in the most recent meetings and will not repeat against retaliatory blows). England is in a similar, though more bleak, boat. If England don’t win their group by about 20 points they have no reason playing rugby. But then they emerge into a game with either France or All Blacks. Both will be tested, having just played the other. If they get over that it’ll be South Africa waiting. Now, getting over France or the Blacks in the quarters will likely put them into the final against either France or the Blacks. No way will England run a gauntlet of France, South Africa and All Blacks. Now that leaves France. The thing is, I’ve just talked myself into supporting the All Blacks. My gut says the Blacks won’t win it, but looking at their group and path to the final, they’ll have revenge on their minds the whole way through. Could it be that this will be their year?

Still the fact remains, their price is too bad to justify backing them. I never said I would figure out who would win the world cup, I just said I’d figure out who I would back, using my patented gambling system. In that case, France is my pick. But it’s unlikely that the French will win it. Luckily for me, I prefer the cheaper thrills of backing a team to win a game that’ll take place in a few hours, and as such, knowing how sport is unpredictable and that on a game-by-game basis the opportunity to pick a genuine contender, as I did 4 years ago, increase, I think I’ll hedge my bets and stick to what I know, i.e. who will win between Ospreys and Leinster (Ospreys). Conversely, prices go down as the competition goes on. And as a result, I won’t actually be backing a team to win the tournament at all.But at least you know who I would back if I did.