[2015 RWC] Semi Final 1: South Africa vs. New Zealand (24/10/2015)

[TheOvalBall]

Sure thing bud, why not? Afterall, let's face it, Saffas are the new refugees now aye? Anyway, I've got work in the morning, sleep well.

What does that even mean ?

 

[TheOvalBall]

Nobody is addressing the possibility that New Zealand might actually come unstuck in the semi's, i.e. that they might play their worst game of RWC 2015. This is a possibility albeit a small one.

 

[unrated]

Nobody is addressing the possibility that New Zealand might actually come unstuck in the semi's, i.e. that they might play their worst game of RWC 2015. This is a possibility albeit a small one.

Yea that is a possibility but after the weekend it is taboo to suggest it. I believe we can do it. If the springboks cant do it then surely no one else can. I believe whoever wins this semifinal will win the world cup.

 

[igy]

SA will take it. Mark my words

 

[unrated]

SA will take it. Mark my words

Done

 

[ABs2011]

Nobody is addressing the possibility that New Zealand might actually come unstuck in the semi's, i.e. that they might play their worst game of RWC 2015. This is a possibility albeit a small one.

That's not true at all. I'm not sure if you are talking about on this thread or in general, but either way there are many on this forum (me included) that are certainly aware of the likelihood that the ABs lose this game, and in general I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Kiwi out there who genuinely believes this game is in the bag before it starts.

The reality is, all rugby followers know this SA team is well capable of beating the ABs on their day. That day could be NZ having a bad game, or, SA playing a blinder but it sure is a possibility. If SA can get dominance in the forwards, play filed position, pressure our set piece and inside backs, and deprive us of quick ball they will probably win. Executing that will be tough against this AB team though. I still think its a 70-30 match.

On a different note, NMS's injury appears to be on the improve and it sounds like he will be good to go.

Crockett's injury is causing some issues it would seem though. Given rules state a team must have 4 props in its match day 23, if Crockett is out injured but a replacement is not called in, NZ would be down to the minimum. If one of those 4 should go down before the match the ABs would be in a spot of bother. It was reported that they could even have to forefit the match although one would expect in that worst case scenario they would just name an injured prop on the bench who would not take part in the game. Either way, Crocketts injury sounds like it aint getting better fast enough to have allow him to play this game, BUT, it sounds like he should be well in time for the ABs final game (hopefuly the final). So it looks like they wont replace him before the semi.

 

[Shaggy]

Nobody is addressing the possibility that New Zealand might actually come unstuck in the semi's, i.e. that they might play their worst game of RWC 2015. This is a possibility albeit a small one.

Not true, I believe that my previous post pointed out that any of the four remaining teams had realist chances of winning their respective games, but as I said, I have confidence in Hansen, McCaw and co in terms of their preparation etc.

Most of us know that this match is going to be a real battle; I think the ABs will win it, but it won't be a massive shock if the result goes the other way either.

 

[Corum]

After watching the All Blacks this weekend it is difficult imagining any result beyond an All Black victory. Particularly if you look at the scoreline, as that is especially intimidating!

However, of the 9 tries scored I reckon 5 would not have been scored against a better organised, and more resolute team.

#1 - Charge down; a complete freebie.
#2 - Offload in the tackle; multiple defenders marking individual attackers; defense out of position.
#3 - Hand-off by Carter; draws another defender; offloads in the tackle.
#4 - Lost possession from a contested kick; Savea runs through 3 people.
#5 - Offload in the tackle; multiple defenders drawn to individual attackers; defense out of position.
#6 - Turnover (possession ripped by Coles); Savea unmarked (no defense).
#7 - Over-marking (more than one defender per attacker, zero defenders on others); All Blacks walk through the gap.
#8 - Offload in tackle (SBW, taking 2 defenders), followed by another offload in the tackle (Nonu).
#9 - Over-marking again.

The 5 that probably shouldn't have been scored:

#1 was a gift.
#7, #8, and #9 were scored against a team that had mentally checked out 30 minutes prior.
#4 probably won't be repeated often against professional teams who have a bit of pride.

That leaves 4 tries, and 4 tries against 1 is probably a fairer representation of the disparity between NZ and France on an average day at the moment.

To summarise, South Africa have a decent chance if they:
#1 Don't gift points (penalty kicks, charge downs, etc...).
#2 Make one-on-one tackles, and prevent offloading in the tackle as much as possible. 5 tries involved missed tackles and/or offloads.
#3 Keep their defensive shape, don't over-mark, trust the system (if there is one).
#4 Convert all possible points scoring opportunities.
#5 Play the pressure situations better.

 

[The Jones Boy]

It will be a very tight game, the staffers are no mugs and they know the All Black game as well as anyone.
The All Blacks biggest issue is suffering from over confidence following a walk over against France.

 

[KeyboardWorrier]

Nobody is addressing the possibility that New Zealand might actually come unstuck in the semi's, i.e. that they might play their worst game of RWC 2015. This is a possibility albeit a small one.

No, it's definitely possible. A damn scary thought forme too.

 

[ENZED-88]

To summarise, South Africa have a decent chance if they:
#1 Don't gift points (penalty kicks, charge downs, etc...).
#2 Make one-on-one tackles, and prevent offloading in the tackle as much as possible. 5 tries involved missed tackles and/or offloads.
#3 Keep their defensive shape, don't over-mark, trust the system (if there is one).
#4 Convert all possible points scoring opportunities.
#5 Play the pressure situations better.

So your pretty much saying SA has to play a perfect game to best the ABs?


I think NZ in General is better man for man and as a unit, but the thing that worries me about the boks is they are never beaten before kick off (like most other teams( they don't think they are an inferior team an never play like it, they will 100% come out this weekend beleiving they can win an play with confidence. I think it'll be close but in the end I think our bench will win us the game.

 

[ABs2011]

So your pretty much saying SA has to play a perfect game to best the ABs?


I think NZ in General is better man for man and as a unit, but the thing that worries me about the boks is they are never beaten before kick off (like most other teams( they don't think they are an inferior team an never play like it, they will 100% come out this weekend beleiving they can win an play with confidence. I think it'll be close but in the end I think our bench will win us the game.

The element of "luck" in rugby I dont think has been discussed here much either. The bounce of the ball and the rub of the green with refereeing decisions in key moments can and does change the results of games. I'm not sure there is a sport in the world that is impacted more by things out of control of the players than Rugby Union.

I guess someone has done some research on this, perhaps looking at outcomes vs predicted outcomes (I guess using bookmakers odds) and the descrepency between the two across different sports over long periods of time. I guess comparing across sports would pose problems in itself because the infrequency of scoring in football I would think lends itslef to a higher number of upsets. Anyway the point is luck can be a big factor in Rugby and you never know, this game could be decided by luck.

Thoughts?

 

[Larksea]

Nobody is addressing the possibility that New Zealand might actually come unstuck in the semi's, i.e. that they might play their worst game of RWC 2015. This is a possibility albeit a small one.

simply not true, NZ's know better than anyone that no game is won before the final whistle. Our history of losing games we should have won in WC's has taught us well.

This All Black side since 2007 never underestimate a side or take any game lightly.

 

[Zapphod]

So your pretty much saying SA has to play a perfect game to best the ABs?


I think NZ in General is better man for man and as a unit, but the thing that worries me about the boks is they are never beaten before kick off (like most other teams( they don't think they are an inferior team an never play like it, they will 100% come out this weekend beleiving they can win an play with confidence. I think it'll be close but in the end I think our bench will win us the game.

Sounds that way but it seems to me that if either team play below par the other team wins and if both sides play well it is anyones game.

Or in other words it will be a close game unless of course it isn't.

Alternatively it would be just as easy to say "I have no idea but I hope it is [insert team you support here].

 

[RoosTah]

Can't wait for this game. Really never know who to go for in Springbok v All Blacks games... All Blacks have been top dog for a long time though, so in a way I'd like to see the boks get up, but I also think the ABs have earned a spot in the final after such sustained dominance.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

You got me thinking.

I'm not sure there is a sport in the world that is impacted more by things out of control of the players than Rugby Union.

I would say football is affected by luck considerably more than rugby. It'd say it's not even a contest to be completely frank.

The first thing that comes to mind is how big the scores/margins are. The lower the scores tends to be the more you have to pay for bad luck (or the higher the reward for good luck).
The second thing that i thought of was how likely are upsets. Just to use an example: last week, Ireland (FIFA ranking 54) beat Germany (latest World Champions and ranked 2nd atm). It was considered rare, but nothing extraordinary.

A quick over the envelope calculation (tons of assumptions, agreed, but should be directionally correct).

Ireland is 54th out of 209. Let say we take 160 to eliminate out-liers. so 54 out of 160
WR rankings has 102 teams. Lets say 72 of those couldn't care less about rugby. We could argue about the figures but again, these should be directionally correct.

So the equivalent would be 54 / 160 X 30. Roughly the tenth. Right now that would mean Japan.

If Japan beat the Wallabies, on a friendly game but will full teams, how much noise do you think that would cause in the rugby world/community. I'd say quite a lot.
Ireland beating Germany on football didn't even make the second page of any football country other than Ireland and Germany.

The third thing i thought of was strategy (although it is related to point 1): in football, it is a legitimate and common strategy to go 100% defense, literally. That allows smaller teams to actually have a shot, albeit a small one. In rugby that is nothing short of suicide.

 

[nickdnz]

I guess someone has done some research on this, perhaps looking at outcomes vs predicted outcomes (I guess using bookmakers odds) and the descrepency between the two across different sports over long periods of time. I guess comparing across sports would pose problems in itself because the infrequency of scoring in football I would think lends itslef to a higher number of upsets. Anyway the point is luck can be a big factor in Rugby and you never know, this game could be decided by luck.

Thoughts?

I've been thinking about this - and I have to say I don't think it is rugby by a long shot. The All Blacks have a better win ratio than any football team - around 90% over the last four years. It could be that maybe there is just more competition in football - but it also doesn't account for massive upsets. As every New Zealander will remember - we drew all our games in the 2010 Soccer World Cup - despite ranking outside the top 100 teams (as opposed to Italy as an example). That just doesn't happen in rugby.

I think a lot of it has to do with the ability to play negatively and disrupt play is more effective in soccer - while I feel in rugby players are generally far more in control of their own destinies.

 

[ABs2011]

You got me thinking.


I would say football is affected by luck considerably more than rugby. It'd say it's not even a contest to be completely frank.

The first thing that comes to mind is how big the scores/margins are. The lower the scores tends to be the more you have to pay for bad luck (or the higher the reward for good luck).
The second thing that i thought of was how likely are upsets. Just to use an example: last week, Ireland (FIFA ranking 54) beat Germany (latest World Champions and ranked 2nd atm). It was considered rare, but nothing extraordinary.

A quick over the envelope calculation (tons of assumptions, agreed, but should be directionally correct).

Ireland is 54th out of 209. Let say we take 160 to eliminate out-liers. so 54 out of 160
WR rankings has 102 teams. Lets say 72 of those couldn't care less about rugby. We could argue about the figures but again, these should be directionally correct.

So the equivalent would be 54 / 160 X 30. Roughly the tenth. Right now that would mean Japan.

If Japan beat the Wallabies, on a friendly game but will full teams, how much noise do you think that would cause in the rugby world/community. I'd say quite a lot.
Ireland beating Germany on football didn't even make the second page of any football country other than Ireland and Germany.

The third thing i thought of was strategy (although it is related to point 1): in football, it is a legitimate and common strategy to go 100% defense, literally. That allows smaller teams to actually have a shot, albeit a small one. In rugby that is nothing short of suicide.

Yeah its certainy interesting, and perhaps something I could do some research on one day if someone will pay me. The premise that the number of upsets be used as a proxy for luck is something I feel like needs some thought.

I did mention football in my post because it does seem to be a sport where there are alot of upsets. But I wondered if that was more due to the nature (infrequency) of scoring in football, and perhaps therefore moments of individual/team brilliance and/or defensive breakdowns as opposed to luck are the things that are more likely to cause the upsets? I dont know cause I'm not a huge football watcher. So I was thinking more in terms of a comparison of rugby to other sports where scoring occurs more frequently, and like you say, moments of luck dont have the same impact on the result: Basketball, volleyball, tennis, cricket for example. I cant think of a sport where luck plays such a frequent roll. The bounce of the ball in rugby literally has an impact on the game. Perhaps this comes into play in a similar sense in cricket, but I cant think of many other sports. Then impact of referee rulings, and the interpretation of the rules by the ref, and also ultimately I guess the frequency with which refs get it wrong. Sports like tennis, volleyball etc are largely error free these days in term of officiating, basketball is certainly affected by how refs call fouls, but again off the top of my head (and I do watch a fair bit of sport), I cant think of a game which can compare to RUgby in this sense.

Anyway, this is a rather large tangent from the game at hand, but without resolving the above problem we've been discussing, the point I am making is that luck could easily be the deciding factor in any of the remaining games. One could argue that Scotland OZ was decided on luck, and perhaps even Wales SA. So it would not at all be beyond belief that ABs SA turns out to be heavily influenced by luck too.

- - - Updated - - -

I've been thinking about this - and I have to say I don't think it is rugby by a long shot. The All Blacks have a better win ratio than any football team - around 90% over the last four years. It could be that maybe there is just more competition in football - but it also doesn't account for massive upsets. As every New Zealander will remember - we drew all our games in the 2010 Soccer World Cup - despite ranking outside the top 100 teams (as opposed to Italy as an example). That just doesn't happen in rugby.

I think a lot of it has to do with the ability to play negatively and disrupt play is more effective in soccer - while I feel in rugby players are generally far more in control of their own destinies.

Yup I agree, BUT it could be (1) that the frequency of upsets is not a good proxy indicator for luck and/or (2) that it is the nature of scoring in football that causes the frequency of upsets, and/or (3) the ability of a team to shut down a game with negative tactics that results in upsets OR none of 1-3 are relvant and I might be wrong and maybe there is more luck invovled in football than rugby?

Haha, its a tough question to answer I guess

I would love to do some empirical reserach on this!! But I think the only way I can think of to do this is start with the premise that upsets are a good proxy for luck - but the more I think about it the more I dont like that premise!!

 

[nickdnz]

It's a tough one - and it depends on how luck is defined. If it is variables which are outside of players control - or at least perceived to be outside of their control - then that could be a way of looking at it. But I think you would need to also look at the potential cost of "luck" to the total result of a game. As an example - say the average score in a soccer match is 2-1. If a referee orders a penalty - he is awarding a chance to score a total of 33% of the matches average points - and potentially much higher depending on the match.

While penalties can easily also accumulate 33% of a rugby matches points - they are collective, and so it is difficult to say a team would be unlucky to give away five penalties - as it would relies less on an individual unlucky call - and rather on a consistent misapplication of the rules.

But outside of referees control - things like a bounce of the ball are an unlucky variable - but rarely do they results in a total end of a teams momentum. Field possession in rugby plays a much more vital role than in football. Because rugby is about accumulative gains. In soccer you can punt a ball down field, and because the offside is the centre line (or behind the ends most defender), gains in territory are much more fluid. Possession is similar, I'm not sure how many passes would be averaged before turnovers, but I'd wager possession is generally more consistent in rugby. Because football is less about accumulative gains, and more about creating space and opportunities sporadically, you could argue there is less control for football players than there are rugby.

I agree it would make a really interesting study. Would be very difficult to try and measure the impact of luck over so many variables.

 

[RoosTah]

Just realized, but this the second World Cup semi final these two countries will have contested this year!