RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland
-
@chimoaus Interesting video - I enjoyed that, thanks.
Hopefully bodes well for the future that Razor was smart enough to conscript O'Gara for a couple of seasons.
Interesting that his main principle for this Cup is to avoid France - and how highly he rates du Pont. So he wants us for this coming QF.
The other thing that I'd been wondering about was quite how good Ireland's record under Farrell is - according to ROG they've won 27 of their last 29. As he says, it gives you pause to think on. As above, I think I'd rather play play the Boks and I think we're at least a 50-50 shot to beat them. They are doing some strange shit and that's likely to come unstuck somewhere.
Unfortunately, I suspect ROG might well get his way. Ireland vs SA is bit of a battle of brains vs brawn and I've got a hunch that Ireland might be quite a bit better than I want them to be.
We'll see - but, in the poll I've picked them to win comfortably.
-
@chimoaus said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:
Makes me think a smart coach will look at NZ and who gives away the most penalties and types of penalties and then try to milk that.
Maybe they already are/have?
-
@nostrildamus havent had to try very hard either...
Our disipline has been poor for a number of years now, so this is not a new phenom for opposition to exploit.
-
@taniwharugby said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:
@nostrildamus havent had to try very hard either...
Our disipline has been poor for a number of years now, so this is not a new phenom for opposition to exploit.
In the forwards it may have even got worse lately?
What really tugs my mountain goat is we still can't work out NH refs.
Grr. -
Tipped Ireland. I just think they're too well organised and cheat magnificently.
-
@antipodean said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:
Tipped Ireland. I just think they're too well organised and cheat magnificently.
So they are using "The McCaw" strategy, no wonder they are doing so well.
-
@Bovidae said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:
The 7:1 split will backfire at some stage if there are early injuries or cards to midfield backs, for example, forcing a major reshuffle. 6:2 allows a halfback and utility back to cover all contingencies.
remember the olden days when a 6:2 bench was considered risky...
-
@voodoo said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:
@Bovidae said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:
The 7:1 split will backfire at some stage if there are early injuries or cards to midfield backs, for example, forcing a major reshuffle. 6:2 allows a halfback and utility back to cover all contingencies.
remember the olden days when a 6:2 bench was considered risky...
Rassie is losing the run of himself. I think all the praise about the 6:2 split has gone to his head and he wants more of that. The supreme innovator.
-
Boks by 9+. No surprises, they will outmuscle and destroy the Irish. Relentless pressure, big emphasis on scrums and mauls . They’ll kick to the Irish and dare them to run it back.
-
-
I read in Irish media this morning there's a possibility that van der Flier may be dropped to the bench in favour of Beirne taking the 6 slot, O'Mahony at 7 and young McCarthy as TH lock to partner Ryan.
-
@antipodean said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:
Gee there's a lot of talk about the Bok bench.
I'm interested in Keith's belief that this might drive a change to a smaller bench. Not going to lie, that would be my preferred option. Hopefully this helps drive the ridiculousness of the current rule.
I do like the idea of a smaller bench, but more the idea of fewer changes. Have X on the bench but only X-3 allowed on. Exception, front row which means someone else must go off and you play with 14 or less if you go over quota. Could be nasty, but games have been finished with 14 due to injuries and cleared benches before
-
@Machpants said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:
@antipodean said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:
Gee there's a lot of talk about the Bok bench.
I'm interested in Keith's belief that this might drive a change to a smaller bench. Not going to lie, that would be my preferred option. Hopefully this helps drive the ridiculousness of the current rule.
I do like the idea of a smaller bench, but more the idea of fewer changes. Have X on the bench but only X-3 allowed on. Exception, front row which means someone else must go off and you play with 14 or less if you go over quota. Could be nasty, but games have been finished with 14 due to injuries and cleared benches before
Yes - you must be punished if you fail to maintain a contest at the set piece.
-
@antipodean said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:
@Machpants said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:
@antipodean said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:
Gee there's a lot of talk about the Bok bench.
I'm interested in Keith's belief that this might drive a change to a smaller bench. Not going to lie, that would be my preferred option. Hopefully this helps drive the ridiculousness of the current rule.
I do like the idea of a smaller bench, but more the idea of fewer changes. Have X on the bench but only X-3 allowed on. Exception, front row which means someone else must go off and you play with 14 or less if you go over quota. Could be nasty, but games have been finished with 14 due to injuries and cleared benches before
Yes - you must be punished if you fail to maintain a contest at the set piece.
And because you could easily end u with 14, you would have a lot less pre planned changes. It would be risky to use all your changes ala Boks at half time
e.g. Bench = 7 allows for Front row, + 2 forwards +2 backs (but mix and match outside of front row)
4 changes allowed
EDIT: or 8 and 5 changes. whatever, just not 8 with the entire forward pack being changed at half time -
-
Does anyone have stats on how often >1 back gets injured per game? I can only assume SA know this and let’s say the odds are 5-10% you then weigh up the benefit of 2 full forward packs pretty much going hard for 40 minutes each.
Ultimately it’s a gamble but what this does say is SA don’t really think impact backs have that much value in the current test meta but the forwards do.
I have to admit I largely agree, there are not many ABs back reserves that are better than the starters that can turn the game. Maybe DMac as a point of difference but really I have long wondered if the back reserves actually add impact or simply hinder the cohesiveness.
Of course BB of old and a few others used to but with Forwards now dominating the game I applaud SA for playing to their strengths.
-
