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

[ShropshireAllBlack]

Any news on the probable Irish team?

Not being announced until tomorrow.

 

[big ginger 8]

Thornley:

IRELAND v South Africa (possible): Hugo Keenan; Mack Hansen, Garry Ringrose, Bundee Aki, James Lowe; Johnny Sexton (capt), Jamison Gibson-Park; Andrew Porter, Ronan Kelleher, Tadhg Furlong; Tadhg Beirne, James Ryan; Peter O'Mahony, Josh van der Flier, Caelan Doris.

Replacements: Dan Sheehan, David Kilcoyne, Finlay Bealham, Iain Henderson, Joe McCarthy, Conor Murray, Jack Crowley, Robbie Henshaw.

Kinsella reporting the same apart from being 50/50 on Baird/McCarthy.

 

[IT157]

after all this build this game will end up being a dud

Wales vs. Australia will end up being the game of the weekend.

 

[ShropshireAllBlack]

Wales vs. Australia will end up being the game of the weekend.

Games where both teams start in a position of fear and are risk averse, always burst into life

 

[General Melchett]

Wales vs. Australia will end up being the game of the weekend.

The losing head coach will officially become 'Yesterday's man' while the winning one will have a short reprieve.

 

[Smurfy]

Wales vs. Australia will end up being the game of the weekend.

You may not be wrong. Should be fairly open with a lot of turnovers.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I'm just gonna leave this here and head off.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

How is something unfair if both teams are able to do it? It's a risk.

Off the ball are so great at what they do though. I'm so happy to have them in my life for when Leinster bottle it.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

I'm just gonna leave this here and head off.

Both teams can do this. That makes it fair.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

How is something unfair if both teams are able to do it? It's a risk.

I believe his argument is that it hugely benefits a particular sort of team over others. I disagree but i do see and understand his argument.

Both teams can do this. That makes it fair.

I believe in this case it is fair, but that statement is not necessarily true.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Both teams can do this. That makes it fair.

I don't agree with Wood (other than limiting subs) but it is pretty clear the 8 sub rule disproportionately assists nations with a large number of oversized and talented forwards who are pretty much incapable of playing 80mins. So effectively, being able to sub more than half your team disproportionately favours Boks, England and France (should the latter two aim to go down that route) compared to all other sides. I don't think unfair is an appropriate word though.

I also think it is fair to say 8 subs, if 7-1 proves successful, may lead to growing selection of oversized forwards incapable of playing 80mins as some kind of arms race, and that this would not be good for the sport as a spectacle or in terms of player safety.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

sure it advantages teams with more depth at forwards but it also advantages teams that look at sports science. Forwards have more collisions and more meters run per game. They are going to tire out quickly so it just makes sense to replace more of them.

Totally agree with Bruce that subs do not make the game safer. Players get bigger and you just have players at full gas running at players firing out.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

What happens if SA are chasing the game?

Dunno. My thoughts.

Down a couple of points? Time on the clock? Prolly nothing. Stick to the plan.

This strat is a boa constrictor. It is brutal but it needs time. If you need to cover a lot of ground in a very short period of time, well, you are kinda ******. You want a sleek series of fancy passes with intricated and precise crossings and feints, ending with a 13 elegantly offloading the ball to a 15 who runs 60 meters? Look elsewhere.

To make matters even worse, with such a bench you don't really have a plan B in case go sideways early on. That's the risk. Having said that, they do know that, and they'd probably argue they are confident enough to stop that from happening.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Forwards have more collisions and more meters run per game.

Not arguing, I don't know, but aren't front rows subbed more often than anyone else? Do they have the highest meters run per game? Not sure.

Nevertheless, i agree with you. He (wood) is not saying it out loud but i speculate he means the spirit of subs was a bit to protect players and as long as all teams used the subs broadly the same way, well, that looked kinda fairish. But now one guy went mental and tried an all in strat that he (Wood) hadn't considered and that strat happens to benefit the team that came up with it and (arguably) only the team that came up with it. He is just blowing a bit of steam. He is angry at

- a new strat he didnt see coming
- a strat they cant do themselves (not with the same impact, clearly)
- all happening during a world cup to which he believes Ire has a fair shot of winning

He's just venting. He does raise a few issues i wouldnt mind discussing, tho. Like the number of subs.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

sure it advantages teams with more depth at forwards but it also advantages teams that look at sports science. Forwards have more collisions and more meters run per game. They are going to tire out quickly so it just makes sense to replace more of them.

Forwards absolutely do not have most metres run per game.

Some mildly interesting stats here for anyone who's into that kind of thing:

World Rugby Passport - Game Demands (Locomotion)

passport.world.rugby

In terms of pure meterage on average: Back Three > Centres > Scrum Halves > Fly Halves > Back Rows > Second Rows > Hookers > Props

In terms of average metres run per minute on the pitch: Scrum Halves > Fly Halves > Back Three > Centres > Back Rows > Props > Hookers > Locks

 

[Amiga500]

I also think it is fair to say 8 subs, if 7-1 proves successful, may lead to growing selection of oversized forwards incapable of playing 80mins as some kind of arms race, and that this would not be good for the sport as a spectacle or in terms of player safety.

Agreed 100%.

The size and fitness of the modern player has really changed the game so much since it went professional.

 

[Becca]

I just think we should go back to subs only for the injured…..

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Forwards absolutely do not have most metres run per game.

Some mildly interesting stats here for anyone who's into that kind of thing:

World Rugby Passport - Game Demands (Locomotion)

passport.world.rugby

In terms of pure meterage on average: Back Three > Centres > Scrum Halves > Fly Halves > Back Rows > Second Rows > Hookers > Props

In terms of average metres run per minute on the pitch: Scrum Halves > Fly Halves > Back Three > Centres > Back Rows > Props > Hookers > Locks

it's the back row in particular that skews the number towards the forwards. I should have specified that the back row out runs everyone on the field.
most of the meters "run" by backs is actually walked.

https://www.jssm.org/jssm-16-84.xml%3EFulltext

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Andy Dunne is the only person on OTB worth listening to.

Unless the 7-1 is proven to result in more injuries in a game (and this wouldn't surprise me) there's no need to get rid of it. Irish media need to start focusing less on the other team and just start being supremely arrogant. Bring the OTB Leinster approach to the international team and everyone will just ignore us like we all do SA media.

 

[Amiga500]

I just think we should go back to subs only for the injured…..

It would definitely make players a bit lighter. Whether that makes it better as collisions may get quicker is another matter.