[RWC2023] South Africa vs Ireland (23/09/2023)

[Lé Ddanno]

Lot of talk about whether Ireland should go 6-2, we shouldn't.

Yeah to hell with that idea, you don't beat SA by trying to play their game better than they do.

7-1 seems like such a stupid risk to take to me. Part of me wants it to backfire quite horribly to end this little experiment.

 

[unrated]

Part of me wants it to backfire quite horribly to end this little experiment.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I'm trying not to seem like I'm bigging up our players too much but which of our regular players do you see losing most collisions?

Against their regular players? Most of them. Fortunately for both of us, we'll have those stats by the end of the game. Well, not those exact stats but close enough.

It is not simply a case of individual power prevailing, otherwise Ireland wouldn't be on a 15 match winning run.

Never said it was. My point is that their plan, being simpler, gives them an edge. Whether that edge is not enough/enough/more than enough to win, i don't. I have a view, but it's an educated guess more than anything.
You also make it sound as if RSA doesn't really know how to support their tacklers. I believe i've stated quite a few times already that their plan (as in team, not individual) is easier to execute.

I get what Cruz was saying. 70% chance of any top team beating a top is a lot. I'd put any of RSA, IRE, or FRA as closer to 70% chance of winning than a toss up but 70% is huge at that level.

Thank you. I'm having trouble grasping the reactions to what i believe to be a very trivial comment. That 70% implies, NECESSARILY, that for every game NZ wins, IRE would have to beat them more than twice.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

7-1 seems like such a stupid risk to take to me. Part of me wants it to backfire quite horribly to end this little experiment.

Why? They are playing to their strengths and even if everything goes wrong they'd still make it out of the group (not 100% but...) reaching 1/4s with quite the rested squad.
Penny for your thoughts. Not about why you want it to fail, but i'm curious about the risks you see.

 

[Lé Ddanno]

One back gets injured, another messes up a tackle and sees red in the first 10 mins. What then.

 

[IT157]

One back gets injured, another messes up a tackle and sees red in the first 10 mins. What then.

They have Kwagga Smith on the bench

 

[unrated]

One back gets injured, another messes up a tackle and sees red in the first 10 mins. What then.

A red card in the backs would hurt both teams equally regardless of a 7-1 split.

As for an injury in the backs.

In case of injury here is what happens
9. Faf (Reinach comes in at 9, Kolbe can fill in here in emergency,)
10. Libbok (Faf goes to 10, Reinach comes in at 9, Kolbe can come here in an Emergency)
11 Kolbe (Reinach comes in at 11)
12 De Allende (Willemse moves to 12, Arendse or Kolbe moves to 15, Reinach comes in at wing)
13 Kriel (De Allende moves to 13, willemse goes to 12, Arendse or Kolbe goes to 15 and Reinach comes in at wing)
14 Arendse (Reinach comes in, Willemse can also cover)
15 Willemse (Kolbe or Arendse moves here, Reinach takes wing, Kriel has played much of his rugby at 15 but we need him at 13, Manie at a pinch can go there too)

Two injuries? Then Kwagga comes in on the backline. Bongi wont be taken off soon as an insurance policy.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

One back gets injured, another messes up a tackle and sees red in the first 10 mins. What then.

They've got a back in the subs and at least one more sub that (I am 100% sure) could play as centers. Reshuffling, but most of them are quite well rounded.
These guys aren't improvising. They know exactly what they are doing. Not saying they aren't taking risks, of course they are, but it's a calculated risk. So much so that they've announced the team way in advance. It's not that they went 7-1 while Irealdn disclosed theirs simultaneously and somehow managed to trick them, or caught them off guard or something. No. They are showing their hand early, they know it, and they want to do it anyway. They aren't playing yatzy, they are playing chess.

 

[munstermuffin]

It crazy Munster will have possibly all 3 main locks on the field at same time.

On game I'll be brave and call it. We get a BP win. Just have a feeling. My Mystic Meg brain says big win with 1 tournament ending injury

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

If we play against Smith in the centre and Reinach on the wing for a half or more we get a BP win. If either need to come on in the first half out of position we win. With all due respect to both, no amount of reps in training will prepare you even remotely close to play out of position against world class opponent who routinely force system errors against the best defences in the world.

I have to hand it to Rassie, he has some grip over rugby to make anyone think otherwise.

 

[unrated]

Dont worry Ronan, We will avenge you! RG and Jean will play their part.


I am happy for Ireland to take this, if we atleast get a final answer on if Libbok will be viable instead of Pollard for the Quarter final. Worst case we win, but with no need for 90% conversion rate, stick with Libbok then play NZ or France in QF and then lose by two points due to 8 missed conversions in an intense pressure cooker. Ireland must test our 10 via the scoreboard, We need to know now if we must make moves, the world cup is at stake.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

snip.

Yeah agreed. It's absolutely mad that people are arguing that 7:1 isn't a risk because Kwagga the flanker can suitably cover centre if needed. Imagine if a single England fan tried to argue that Curry or Earl were a legit option there? Maybe 7:1 will pay off but any injuries to to de Allende, Kriel, or more than 2 of any backs and the Boks are ******.

 

[IT157]

Yeah agreed. It's absolutely mad that people are arguing that 7:1 isn't a risk because Kwagga the flanker can suitably cover centre if needed. Imagine if a single England fan tried to argue that Curry or Earl were a legit option there? Maybe 7:1 will pay off but any injuries to to de Allende, Kriel, or more than 2 of any backs and the Boks are ******.

Some people have been calling for that actually.

Love how wound up some are with the 7:1 split.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Some people have been calling for that actually.

"Some people" being Eddie and Stephen Jones in clickbait interviews.

 

[unrated]

Yeah agreed. It's absolutely mad that people are arguing that 7:1 isn't a risk because Kwagga the flanker can suitably cover centre if needed. Imagine if a single England fan tried to argue that Curry or Earl were a legit option there? Maybe 7:1 will pay off but any injuries to to de Allende, Kriel, or more than 2 of any backs and the Boks are ******.

Look 7-1 is risky there is no denying. But its a risk that was considered acceptable.

Just. FYI if Kwagga needs to come on in the backline we wont put him on centre. It would be on the wing. Then the other players would shuffle if the need is at 12 or 13, Willemse is the 12 backup, De Allende covers 13.

 

[Lé Ddanno]

I don't have to be rational in disliking it. I just hate it. It's bordering on a meme team.

 

[Lé Ddanno]

"Some people" being Eddie and Stephen Jones in clickbait interviews.

Feels like a lot of people have forgotten about Sir Samuel of Burgess

 

[IT157]

"Some people" being Eddie and Stephen Jones in clickbait interviews.

Posters here as well....

 

[Groundhog]

I don't have any moral or philosophical objections to the 7-1, I just think it's like shaving your balls with a disposable razor. Might work once, but it's insanely risky.

If you have players playing outside of their natural position for significant time against quality opposition it will be targeted over and over. Why turn a top class player into an a maybe serviceable one?

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Cassie is one step away from using by rugby 20 8-0 split strategy.