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

[munstermuffin]

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?

The only thing is if it does work it is effectively 2 and 0 with 2 wins against NZ and Ireland.

 

[Groundhog]

The only thing is if it does work it is effectively 2 and 0 with 2 wins against NZ and Ireland.

If my grandmother had wheels...

 

[ChicagoKid]

Love the risk. Scotland is the big winner here. Win or lose, Ireland is going to be on the mend.

 

[IT157]

Love the risk. Scotland is the big winner here. Win or lose, Ireland is going to be on the mend.

Scotland will be hoping for a South Africa victory I'm sure

 

[Derpus]

I think South Africa will win in a good ol' fashioned slobberknocker.

I read this as knobberslobber.

Anyway, pretty torn on this one. On the one hand the Irish are filthy poaching sacks of **** that have built their incredible team on the back of foreign talent and IP. Also Sexton seems like a petulant tawt. BUT I do have Irish heritage and it would be cool to see a new team win the cup (whoever wins this go on as clear favourites IMO).

On the other hand I hate Saffa fans & media pundits with their bullshit 'world's against us' mentality and hate what Rassie has done to undermine officials (justice 4 Berry). Kolisi seems cool tho.

On balance - lets go Ireland.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I'd bet against that but i like your optimism.


Regarding IRE vs RSA, anyone can win (hello captain obvious!), sure, but i see RSA having a simpler plan to execute and that is a huge advantage imo. And there was something in their last game: look at how they rushed their penalties. They werent trying to get the points, avoid injuries and move on. They were seriously motivated, like on-a-mission motivated.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that RSA is better than IRE but styles make fights, and out of the top 4 (IRE-FRA-NZ-RSA), style-wise, RSA's counters IRE's the best imo.

For me the context and immediacy is key. I believe NZ will get back on the horse sooner rather than later and if this were a RC game I'd give them the odds especially at home but atm they are playing without any true coherence. They will always be able to score tries against the run of a game off pure individual brilliance like Roigard in the last tie, that early string of tries in the game in NZ and vs France but I've seen enough to see the other 'big three' as favorites against them.

That said a week can make a huge difference and if we lost another Marx and Frizzell was back as an example we'll, I'd start tightening my margins but yes, I am confident that we can beat them at a neutral venue in knock out rugby with everything on the line. Much more so them than France.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

On the team..

I'm all for Willemse at 15. Le Roux won't be scything into the line and putting wingers away vs Ireland like he did Romania and Willemse is better in defense, better under the high ball, better hands and better on attack as an individual. All these will be more important IMO. He has more distance in the kick as well.

Our wings are both small but tenacious in defense and deadly if given any space. They are going to have to go looking for the ball though. Them in combination with the centers being DDA and Kriel tell me we are going to attempt to strangle Ireland. Don't know how much I like it but that's the plan.

My biggest gripe is the 7 1 split and Wiese ahead of Vermeulen. With Marx out of the equation Vermeulen for me becomes our best jackler. Who is going to play to the ball now? Wiese is better than Vermeulen ball in hand sure but we need to attack the Irish breakdown or at least slow it down. Marx out also takes a bit of sting out of the bomb squad idea. I'd have liked Pollard on the bench if only to give him 20 minutes of exposure against quality opponents.

Still excited for the match but it looks like we are still exploring our squad options or rotating. I'd have preferred targeting this match for a W myself.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Love the risk. Scotland is the big winner here. Win or lose, Ireland is going to be on the mend.

I'm fairly sure we got more injuries in the first 25mins of the Scotland game in March than the SA game in November. De Jager and Marx played that one and Etzebeth played 80, they obviously don't lose much in Snyman but not having a hooker on the bench and Kleyn more or less guaranteed to come on for Etzebeth is a huge relief.

Scotland still need a minor miracle.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I hate the principle of 7:1 so a large part of me hopes it bites the Boks right on the arse.

Also don't really get the Marx / Pollard thing, well I do, but it's a risk that could backfire. And tough sh*t if it does - they've rolled the dice. Given how much emphasis they put on forward power it seems odd to potentially jeopardise their set piece.

Is Etzebeth properly fit?

I think the Bok forward power will edge it, but less confident in that than I was a few days ago. One score game and an interesting clash of styles.

 

[Jer1cho]

I trust our coaches 100%. They turned us into a World Class team, won us a WC, and we essentially sit with 2 full strength teams at this tournament, who are peaking at the right time. All the haters can hate. We invented the bomb squad, and now it's a nuke squad. Deal with it. If it bites us, we think we are good enough to deal with that too. Bring it.

 

[Derpus]

I trust our coaches 100%. They turned us into a World Class team, won us a WC, and we essentially sit with 2 full strength teams at this tournament, who are peaking at the right time. All the haters can hate. We invented the bomb squad, and now it's a nuke squad. Deal with it. If it bites us, we think we are good enough to deal with that too. Bring it.

Case in point

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

November 2022 Teams:

Forwards

• 1 Andrew Porter
• 2 Dan Sheehan
• 3 Tadhg Furlong
• 4 Tadhg Beirne
• 5 James Ryan
• 6 Peter O'Mahony
• 7 Josh van der Flier
• 8 Caelan Doris

Backs

• 9 Conor Murray
• 10 Johnny Sexton (Captain)
• 11 Mack Hansen
• 12 Stuart McCloskey
• 13 Garry Ringrose
• 14 Robert Baloucoune
• 15 Hugo Keenan

Replacements

• 16 Rob Herring
• 17 Cian Healy
• 18 Finlay Bealham
• 19 Kieran Treadwell
• 20 Jack Conan
• 21 Jamison Gibson Park
• 22 Joey Carbery
• 23 Jimmy O'Brien

South Africa Team

Forwards

• 1 Steven Kitshoff
• 2 Malcolm Marx
• 3 Frans Malherbe
• 4 Eben Etzebeth
• 5 Lood de Jager
• 6 Siya Kolisi (Captain)
• 7 Pieter-Steph du Toit
• 8 Jasper Wiese

Backs

• 9 Jaden Hendrikse
• 10 Damian Willemse
• 11 Makazole Mapimpi
• 12 Damian de Allende
• 13 Jesse Kriel
• 14 Kurt-Lee Arendse
• 15 Cheslin Kolbe

Replacements

• 16 Bongi Mbonambi
• 17 Ox Nche
• 18 Vincent Koch
• 19 Franco Mostert
• 20 Deon Fourie
• 21 Kwagga Smith
• 22 Faf de Klerk
• 23 Willie le Roux

Thought this was worth a look whilst everyone collectively loses their minds. Take the emotion and anticipation out of it and I don't think anyone can say the 7/1 split bringing in RG, Van Staden and Kleyn improves on those forwards at all.

Perhaps more interestingly, both sides will start (and Ireland finish) with better balanced backs. Potentially a leveller.

 

[Jer1cho]

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I mentioned it before but i will say it again: i think it's quite courageous the way NZ is being underestimated here. And of course, their record as of late isn't that impressive, but they have all the tools they need to beat anyone.

Regarding the 7-1, i see a lot of hate but i don't see a lot of reasons to justify such a dislike. 'Too much risk', jeez. Let's assume that is the case. For the sake of an argument. What's wrong with a team, other than your own, taking big chances? If anything it adds to the spectacle.

I can venture a hypothesis: maybe they are the only ones who can pull it off. The fact that Rassie is involved in all of this certainly adds to the equation. They are basically throwing the strat book out the window and fighting fire with fire because in their view, their fire is stronger than anyone else's. I am not convinced that is true, but as someone with no skin in the game, good lord, i wanna see them try it out. And again, they are not being cautious or secretive about it. There is a big quota of romanticism in that, ha! They are saying, out loud: i don't care what you've got, this is what we've got, try and stop us. And when something like this happens (radical change in strat), for the first couple of times, common sense suggests we should expect to see a bit of hesitation from the players. I mean, it's not a proven strategy. I don't see that, not at all.
I see them laying out their plan, revealing their hand in advance, and forcing others to adjust accordingly. As much as i enjoy people putting brutal displays of arrogance in their place, there is a certain beauty to their method. I guess we'll see soon enough what the results of such an experiment are.

EDIT: the biggest potential flaw i see here are injuries. Marx's loss is monumental imo, particularly on defense. They can cover for it, sure, but it wont be the same. And i am Not sure how EE is.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I mentioned it before but i will say it again: i think it's quite courageous the way NZ is being underestimated here. And of course, their record as of late isn't that impressive, but they have all the tools they need to beat anyone.

Regarding the 7-1, i see a lot of hate but i don't see a lot of reasons to justify such a dislike. 'Too much risk', jeez. Let's assume that is the case. For the sake of an argument. What's wrong with a team, other than your own, taking big chances? If anything it adds to the spectacle.

I can venture a hypothesis: maybe they are the only ones who can pull it off. The fact that Rassie is involved in all of this certainly adds to the equation. They are basically throwing the strat book out the window and fighting fire with fire because in their view, their fire is stronger than anyone else's. I am not convinced that is true, but as someone with no skin in the game, good lord, i wanna see them try it out. And again, they are not being cautious or secretive about it. There is a big quota of romanticism in that, ha! They are saying, out loud: i don't care what you've got, this is what we've got, try and stop us. And when something like this happens (radical change in strat), for the first couple of times, common sense suggests we should expect to see a bit of hesitation from the players. I mean, it's not a proven strategy. I don't see that, not at all.
I see them laying out their plan, revealing their hand in advance, and forcing others to adjust accordingly. As much as i enjoy people putting brutal displays of arrogance in their place, there is a certain beauty to their method. I guess we'll see soon enough what the results of such an experiment are.

EDIT: the biggest potential flaw i see here are injuries. Marx's loss is monumental imo, particularly on defense. They can cover for it, sure, but it wont be the same. And i am Not sure how EE is.

It's in the rules and up to each team what they do. I don't give a monkey's whether the Boks are running risk or not - that's their judgement call. In many ways it will be an interesting watch.

I just prefer rugby as a team game, not a squad one. I find a whole new pack running on totally unedifying and against my preference of reaping the rewards of wearing down an opponent over the course of a game.

Then again I am, unapologetically, from the Mesozoic era.

 

[Smurfy]

I'd have thought that the possibility of injury to one or two of the replacement forwards, other than front rowers, in the second half is the real risk, unless of course any injuries could be represented as head or blood injuries.

 

[Jer1cho]

Case in point

Feeling is mutual, but the hate has turned to pity for you Aussie fans now. Sorry about that.

 

[Derpus]

Feeling is mutual, but the hate has turned to pity for you Aussie fans now. Sorry about that.

I mean, you have to live in South Africa so...

 

[Jer1cho]

I mean, you have to live in South Africa so...

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I just prefer rugby as a team game, not a squad one.

Well, you present this as if squads weren't part of a team, which they are. And they are not playing for the sake of entertainment, they are playing to win.

My take: when you face someone who goes for a high-risk-high-reward strat, you dont beat them by *****ing about it pre-game. You beat them by exploiting that high risk to your advantage and hitting them where they are exposed. The problem here is i am not sure many can actually exploit that against them. If that is the case (big if, I concede) then it is no longer a high-risk strat anymore. It is just a good bloody strat. I believe, to some degree, they are testing that out. They have a plan, they believe they have the players to pull it off, they are playing against someone who on paper could make them pay for it and, worst case scenario, they are still in 1/4 finals. I might not like it, but i do see quite a lot of sense behind their decisions.

And again, and i cant stress enough how relevant this is: they have no surprise factor to play around with.