Now for Samoa on Sunday and the problem is that, while we didn't truly believe we could beat the world champions, we truly do believe we can lose to the tiny Pacific Island country.
Infuriating? Undoubtedly. Enthralling? That does not begin to describe it. But then Wales' continuing battle to wipe their DNA of all its insecurity is destined to be just one more gripping chapter in a tournament already promising to be an epic. Believe it, the Rugby World Cup is set to come of age before our eyes.
Of course, you won't hear that from the depressingly ever-present, one-eyed contingent in rugby league, who, for some reason, still fail to acknowledge it is possible to admire both codes.
Fair enough, there is a section of union supporters who are similarly prejudiced. I say, let them bicker. It's rather like when you run into a husband and wife having a barney late at night - they're best left well alone. Otherwise they'll both turn on you.
But that doesn't mean all the naysayers should escape confrontation. Indeed, those out there declaring the Rugby World Cup to be too long must be challenged, Courtney Lawes-style. There is wrong, plain wrong and pig-ignorant. And this particular argument gains priority membership in all three.
The comparison with the Cricket World Cup is flimsy. The Cricket World Cup took 43 days to complete 49 matches, while the rugby equivalent will take 45 days to complete 48 games. The content-to-time ratio is very similar. But there were only 14 teams in India and Sri Lanka; there are 20 in New Zealand. That tells its own story.
But so does the fact there were only two groups for cricket. Those group stages were round robin but actually felt more like Round Penguin Colony. It took 32 days out of 43 days to reach the knockout stages. The extravaganza did feature a "group of death", but the cause of death was old age.
Yet all that is immaterial because what distinguishes rugby and cricket is so obviously the natures of the sports. The point is the Cricket World Cup didn't need to take that long. Teams can play every other day; little recovery time is required. The rugby players, of course, need a stretch of days to recover, ideally a week. And if you don't agree then either you don't understand rugby or you did not see the two Argentines carried off after colliding with Lawes.
Medical necessity means the RWC is largely confined to the weekends. Of the seven weekends, three will be the knockout stages. That is the perfect mix. But then it always has been. What ensures this RWC will not drag is that all of a sudden the group matches are competitive.
The walkovers, while still in evidence, will blessedly be the rarity and not the normality.
That's because all those World Cups which definitely did feel too long gave the "smaller" nations the experience they needed to improve - and most importantly the impetus and motivation. As we see Japan frighten France, Romania scare the Scots and the Americans give Ireland a nudge it is apparent that the RWC is now benefiting from those tournaments when the action was chiefly limited to the quarter-finals onwards.
This sense of competition will only heighten in future events. Exactly the same happened in soccer and, although rugby does not possess either the widespread appeal or the ease of access of soccer, the comparison between those two World Cups is already more justified than between rugby and cricket.
Just think, four years ago the International Rugby Board came within one meeting of bowing to the critics and reducing the number of teams in the World Cup and hence the length of the event.
That would have been shortsighted, detrimental and stupid. The sport has absolutely no chance of expanding around the world if it does not dangle carrots of success, hopes of glory, the incentive of the contest to the unconvinced.
So the Rugby World Cup is not too long. Indeed, after our first match we Welsh were of the opinion that it could not last long enough. Bring on the Samoans. We were unlucky not to have toppled the world champions, you know.
- Independent
