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

[Leonormous Boozer]

I don't think it's high reward. They're risking having to play a forward on the wing to get Jean Kleyn into the squad. I'd take James Ryan or Eben Etzebeth on one leg ahead of Kleyn, nevermind only having played 60mins of rugby.

 

[Jer1cho]

I don't think it's high reward. They're risking having to play a forward on the wing to get Jean Kleyn into the squad. I'd take James Ryan or Eben Etzebeth on one leg ahead of Kleyn, nevermind only having played 60mins of rugby.

Kleyn is a lineout thief of note, and a very much like for like replacement for Lood de Jager. I'm also biased, as I met him a few months ago at my daughters school, where he went to school as well. He popped in for a visit. Really seemed over the moon over his call up. He also partners well with RG (they add a lot of scrum power). I have complete faith in him. Was high reward when we walloped NZ, and could be again if we are good enough and lucky enough.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Kleyn is a lineout thief of note, and a very much like for like replacement for Lood de Jager. I'm also biased, as I met him a few months ago at my daughters school, where he went to school as well. He popped in for a visit. Really seemed over the moon over his call up. He also partners well with RG (they add a lot of scrum power). I have complete faith in him. Was high reward when we walloped NZ, and could be again if we are good enough and lucky enough.

To be honest I'm kind of sceptical of that too. It was 21-0 v 14 when they came on and it ended 35-7, Seems reasonable to think a 6/2 or 5/3 garners a similar result.

For what it's worth, I don't think it weakens SA at all outside of the obvious risk, I just don't see it as something that Ireland really need to consider massively in their approach to this game.

As for Kleyn, he's definitely improved in the last 12 months but on his best day he's a bench option for a top international side. If you had Lood starting with Mostert and RG off the bench or some variation of those four locks I'd be a lot more nervous, they're all capable of making an impact as starters or off the bench at this level. On the other hand Kleyn has been playing against Ryan for 7 years now and has never caused any trouble of note. As fifth choice locks go though, he's far from a bad one.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

very much like for like replacement for Lood de Jager

The man's recovering from a serious medical incident and you treat him like this?
Poor guy

 

[big ginger 8]

I've no issues with the 7-1, it suits what SA want to do and it's nice to see innovation. One of the things I love about rugby is the different approaches teams can take.

However, to downplay the risks or completely ignore them is stupid. The SA coaching staff obviously believe they have them covered enough that they're comfortable doing this in what isn't a must win game but I think if Pollard was fully integrated or this was a must win we'd see a 6-2 from them. Sexton has exposed seasoned wingers with his kicking game and so have our entire back three. If I was South African I wouldn't want Reinach playing a long time on the wing, let alone Kwagga.

Also Kleyn is a strong tackler and good in the maul and scrum but I'd say he's far from a great defensive jumper.

 

[Jer1cho]

The man's recovering from a serious medical incident and you treat him like this?
Poor guy

Wut I mean they play a similar type of game. Nothing against old Lood lol. Hope he gets better!

 

[Jer1cho]

Also Kleyn is a strong tackler and good in the maul and scrum but I'd say he's far from a great defensive jumper.

Unless you play Romania lol. He literally stole every one of their lineouts after one stage. Stole a bunch vs Scotland as well. Ireland have the best lineout in the world so it will be interesting anyway, once he comes on. So far, for the Boks, he has been excellent there, and does a lot of dirty work around the park, like Mostert. Im not looking at his Munster seasons, just his recent form, for us, with our style of play and coaching. He has slotted in perfectly.

 

[Yulia]

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.

I also didn't get a thought of Vieux Talonneur tbh
(but dinosaurs were nice)

 

[O’Doyle Rules]

Really hoping Ireland don't get completely dominated upfront. More I think about it, more I worry - our whole gameplan is based on quick ruck ball.

Also worried about shifting it wide quickly and getting isolated then pinged for holding on.

Yet again, Ireland are an intelligent team - surely, they have plans ready.

In a weird way, if Ireland lose (and hopefully beat Scotland), they will at least have had a dress rehearsal for France.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

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.

We're actually agreeing on quite a lot apart from your first para. I fully accept that it is a squad game, I just don't like it, especially the wholesale pack change. My objection is also nothing to do with 'entertainment' - I fully agree that winning is the only game in town, especially in a World Cup.

One way or another the Bomb+ squad will be influential. Whether that's to their advantage or detriment remains to be seen.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I kind of love it. Rugby media is in a frenzy right now and it's hilarious. Regardless of the result the split will be the reason for it, I reckon that's in Rassie's thought process too. This match isn't the be all and end all, he knows it's about outlasting the rest after this.

Like I struggled to sleep last night with excitement for this game, I couldn't wait for the France game this year but this one feels bigger again for us. I think we've been so disrespected coming into this tournament as 4th favourites, time to show everyone we're not here to make up numbers.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I don't think it's high reward. They're risking having to play a forward on the wing to get Jean Kleyn into the squad. I'd take James Ryan or Eben Etzebeth on one leg ahead of Kleyn, nevermind only having played 60mins of rugby.

I'll bite, just for kicks. If there is a high risk and there is no reward, then the choice is pretty much the one of an imbecile. They'd be increasing their exposure to concede points while not improving their chances of scoring.
Now, if they, somehow, manage to beat Ireland using that strat, well, then the question I will be asking will be: how on earth did they manage to beat god's gift to rugby?

Why do i call it high-risk high reward? Because they are putting all their eggs in one basket because, this is my speculation, they believe that such a basket will be strong enough for them to be able to bully you around with that basket. The springboks biggest asset is their pack, so they are neglecting other areas to be able to deliver that pack in steroids.

I am not saying it will work. I dont know. But at the very least i understand the rationale behind their plan.

I fully accept that it is a squad game, I just don't like it,

That's fine. Not my favourite cup of tea either. Having said that, when my team plays, i'd rather win playing horrible rugby than lose while entertaining millions. Ten times out of ten.

When a coach sees something that no one else has, he also puts it into practice, all in, and then that plan happens to work? Well, i wouldn't necessarily equate that to genius, but it's not that far off either.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Regardless of the result the split will be the reason for it, I reckon that's in Rassie's thought process too.

I agree. That is actually quite smart of them. If they lose, they were just trying out new stuff, and if they win, they are revolutionizing the game.
They are galvanizing themselves.

 

[Smurfy]

I can understand, and don't have an issue with, their 7:1 split as it plays to their strengths. What I cant understand though is Kriel for Moodie. If you believe that you can overwhelm the Irish forwards why weaken your attack by selecting a superior defender ahead of a superior attacker? I'm quite pleased that Ireland will be facing an excellent direct runner rather than a mercurial and creative distributor like Moodie.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I'll bite, just for kicks. If there is a high risk and there is no reward, then the choice is pretty much the one of an imbecile. They'd be increasing their exposure to concede points while not improving their chances of scoring.
Now, if they, somehow, manage to beat Ireland using that strat, well, then the question I will be asking will be: how on earth did they manage to beat god's gift to rugby?

Why do i call it high-risk high reward? Because they are putting all their eggs in one basket because, this is my speculation, they believe that such a basket will be strong enough for them to be able to bully you around with that basket. The springboks biggest asset is their pack, so they are neglecting other areas to be able to deliver that pack in steroids.

I am not saying it will work. I dont know. But at the very least i understand the rationale behind their plan.

I think we're rationalising it differently and who knows if either of us are correct!

I think they're covering for the lack of a hooker and Etzebeth's injury. With a flanker covering hooker they're losing about 10kg and a hell of a lot of talent to what they'd have had with Marx. They're up against one of the two or three teams which are smart enough and talented enough to exploit this. I don't think they'd have bothered against Scotland or anyone from the other side of the draw in the same position but finishing with a flanker playing hooker necessitates a bit more help at the scrum and that's something Kleyn does well. They also want to protect their best player for later in the tournament which obviously makes loads of sense too.

If SA lose another player to injury, I'd be shocked if they don't replace him with a hooker. At this level of the game I just don't see having a flanker there not being a weakness.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

f you believe that you can overwhelm the Irish forwards why weaken your attack by selecting a superior defender ahead of a superior attacker?

Because that is precisely where you are leaving yourself exposed and therefore it makes sense to prioritize defense over offense.

They plan to hurt you with
- pack
- back 3
- kicks


Earlier in this thread a few mentioned (paraphrasing) '[INSERT SOUTH AFRICAN BACK ROW] can't play as a center'. Offensively probably he cannot, at least not at the level you expect from the best in the world. But defensively? I think he could do quite okish. The biggest constraints should be speed and positioning. If the forward is not slow and he understands/is coached about the latter, i don't see why not.

The beauty of this is they are telling all of us, exactly, what their plan is. They are banking everything, absolutely everything on execution.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I think we're rationalising it differently and who knows if either of us are correct!

We both know.

 

[Smurfy]

We both know.

What happens if SA are chasing the game?

 

[O’Doyle Rules]

Because that is precisely where you are leaving yourself exposed and therefore it makes sense to prioritize defense over offense.

They plan to hurt you with
- pack
- back 3
- kicks


Earlier in this thread a few mentioned (paraphrasing) '[INSERT SOUTH AFRICAN BACK ROW] can't play as a center'. Offensively probably he cannot, at least not at the level you expect from the best in the world. But defensively? I think he could do quite okish. The biggest constraints should be speed and positioning. If the forward is not slow and he understands/is coached about the latter, i don't see why not.

The beauty of this is they are telling all of us, exactly, what their plan is. They are banking everything, absolutely everything on execution.

This what I love about SA.

Here is our team and gameplan - deal with it.

Not sure why everyone is getting so worked up - the gauntlet has been laid for Ireland, let's see what we have.

 

[Smurfy]

it could also be interpreted as showing Ireland too much respect. Nienaber has said that this was trialled against NZ with Ireland in mind. When did SA, or any top nation, ever make such a dramatic change to their tactics specifically for Ireland? I'm taking it as a huge compliment that Ireland have now become a serious threat. Even the Kiwis, who only ever held us in contempt, now despise us.