After big q-final battles, is Argentina-England finale a possibility?

The worst has come to pass, but it was a scenario we were all expecting before the Rugby World Cup began anyway – that two of the world’s best four sides would be out before the semi-finals.

Younger and powerful challengers France and Ireland, as we saw last weekend,

were knocked out by heavyweights South Africa and New Zealand, respectively –

it was the “Rumble in the Jungle”, George Foreman vs Muhammad Ali, on successive days.

But now comes a worse scenario – what if, after such monumental battles last weekend, the Springboks and All Blacks cannot back those performances up this weekend?

What if we get, with all due respect to those two nations, the nightmare final: Argentina vs England?

It could happen, and not just because it is technically possible.

Four years ago, England confounded their critics by outplaying the All Blacks, the defending champions, 19-7, in a pulsating semifinal. It was a demolition job that many observers, including former England players and coaches, described as the best-ever performance by an England team.

A week later, however, Eddie Jones’ men were totally dominated in turn by a South African side who had earlier in the tournament been beaten 23-13 by that same New Zealand team in the group stage.

True, England did lose first-choice tighthead proper Kyle Sinkler only minutes into the game with injury, replaced by veteran Dan Cole – who was suddenly required to play a full match rather than his usual second-half cameo.

And to do so against a powerful, take-no-prisoners Springboks pack that was augmented by their so-called Bomb Squad on the bench, who came on to squeeze an outmuscled England even tighter in the second half. 

So was it a question of the Springboks truly being that much better than England?

The more likely explanation is that it is difficult to peak twice in two weeks and England, having played a superb, well thought out game against the All Blacks, were spent and couldn’t hit another high when required to in the final.

England probably played their best game, their final, one week early.

The Springboks, on the other hand, had a relatively easier semi-final against Wales and ended up travelling on a more desired, gradually upward trajectory, rather than one that required a team to hit a spike and then having to climb another one again immediately after.

The question then is: could the same fate that befell England in 2019 hit New Zealand and South Africa this time?

There is no doubt that Argentina and England both had challenging quarter-finals against Wales and Fiji.

But no one would argue that they had to dig as deep as the All Blacks and the Springboks had in knocking out Ireland, the tournament favourites and the world’s top-ranked team, and hosts France, respectively.

The English and the Pumas have also had more serene journeys into the quarter-finals – both were in the same pool – beating Japan, Samoa and Chile. None of the three were ranked higher than 12th when the tournament began.

New Zealand, meanwhile had to face France in their pool, and lost, while South Africa finished second to Ireland in theirs. All these teams were ranked in the top four.

So could the unlikely happen and Argentina and England both get through?

In terms of tournament and overall history, probably not.

Argentina have beaten New Zealand only twice in their 36-match history, and never in three World Cup meetings. Significantly though, both Argentina’s wins have come since Ian Foster became All Blacks coach in 2019.

And Argentina is coached by former Australian coach Michael Cheika, who in 14 meetings with the All Blacks, did pull off three wins. And the Pumas’ second win over New Zealand, on Kiwi soil last year, was under his watch.

So there is a glimmer of hope for the Pumas, who have twice been in the semi-finals but have yet to win. They too must hope that New Zealand’s win over Ireland – their best performance under Foster – was also their apogee.

Holders South Africa and England have met five times at the World Cup, with the score being 4-1 to the Springboks.

But revenge is a powerful motivator, and England need only think of the humiliation in 2019 to spur them on.

Furthermore, England are the only unbeaten team left in the tournament, and Steve Borthwick’s men are slowly but surely coming into form.

But their best so far is some way off what we have seen from the South Africans, who have played a very smart game both on and off the pitch.

Not only has de facto coach Rassie Erasmus developed a powerful and exciting team, composed 41 per cent of players of colour, he and actual coach Jacques Nienaber have brought some interesting innovations into their game.

These include the 7-1 split on the bench, using coloured lights to indicate what they want the team to do (for example, kick the penalty or kick it to the corner for an attacking lineout), and calling for a scrum after taking a mark (to tire out their opposing forwards).

An interesting new “innovation” against France, but which the Boks have denied is a deliberate tactic, was the use of head injury assessments (HIAs). While HIAs are usually initiated by the match doctor to take a player off a field to check if he has had a concussion, the Springboks last weekend took the unusual step of unilaterally calling for a HIA on one of their players.

While Erasmus cited concerns over player safety, and we have to give him the benefit of the doubt here, it was also convenient that the player taken off can be replaced while he is being checked. This is almost the same as having rolling substitutions, where tired players are taken off for a breather and someone who has rested gets back on.

This, you could say, is taking mind games to a whole other level.