Rugby World Cup general discussion
-
@junior said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
@Smuts said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
@Dodge said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
@MajorRage said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
I'm genuinely surprised that it seems a few people think England have a hope against SA.
They 100% genuinely, really, don't. Not a sliver.
This. I can’t understand people rating our forwards with a hope in hell against the Boks. We’re not good enough outside of the pack to live on parity, let alone on the amount of shit back foot, going backwards ball we’ll have to live on. God forbid anyone knocks a ball on, our scrum is going to be marmalised
It’s a RWC semi final. Pressure is a great equalizer. And there is plenty of quality in your squad. Let’s hope your staff keep failing to select it.
Don't sleep on England. Despite the way it appeared, they did do it relatively comfortably against Fiji - certainly moreso than any other semi finalist and particularly the Boks. It's unlikely that they win, but certainly not impossible. A fast start for England and it will become a very interesting match.
Still predicting the Boks to win by a score and a half.
I think we’re violently agreeing?
-
-
@frugby said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
Generally the guy who has done the final has refereed right through the knockouts... the way I read it, is they had Barnes or O'Keeffe down to do the final, with Jaco Peyper as the contingency plan, but as he got injured, they now needed a new contingency for a NZ v SA final, and were not happy with Raynal last week, thus have brought Gardiner back in.
while this all sounds sensible I wonder which week they were happy with Raynal..
-
@MiketheSnow interesting stats, but gee, 80 odd minutes and we get less than 40 mins on average in play...
-
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
@MiketheSnow interesting stats, but gee, 80 odd minutes and we get less than 40 mins on average in play...
34mins average in last RWC, 26mins in 1995. This is as good as it's ever been
The length of the stoppages is more of an issue
-
@Duluth well yeah its great it is trending up, but still, alot of wasted time.
Also interesting seeing Fiji and Wales feature in there more than any other team, but I guess the opposition dictates how quick you can play the game.
Obviously even high scoring games are not immune from mass stoppages or wasted minutes, given we like to play at pace yet our mammoth scoring efforts in pool play are well down.
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
(yes i am getting ahead of myself)
Booked your ticker tape parade yet?
-
@NTA said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
@mariner4life said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
(yes i am getting ahead of myself)
Booked your ticker tape parade yet?
sssshhh, the Tier 1 countries are talking. You minnows have had your time in the sun
-
@taniwharugby would have nice to see whom the official was for each game
-
@Steven-Harris good point, they play a big part too.
Assume the stat gurus must also have a breakdown of how many times refs stop the clock too?
-
I had a look at all this a while back to see why I was falling out of love with the game. Aside from the frustrations of Foster's coaching and seeming lackadaisical approach to losses and records.
Time in play largely dependent upon number of set piece restarts. A penalty takes time and leads directly to a lineout or shot at goal. A scrum penalty started with a scrum, possibly a reset, before a penalty, then a lineout. It can take minutes out of a match, with the walk down field, lineout formation. Throw in a crooked throw leading to another scrum and you've had time to walk the dog before it starts again.
Mistakes leading to scrums is the other factor, so risk aversion of sides is relevant. Number of offloads, 50/50 plays. There are now half the number of off loads than at 1987 RWC and twice as many phases per possession.
Basically, as @duluth said, ball is actually in play longer. The real problem is the total time the game takes. 2 hours for 38ish minutes is an awful lot with nothing happening. They introduced protocols about getting injured players off, etc but none of it happens.
-
If anyone is interested:
The Evolution of Rugby: A Statistical Analysis
Rugby Union is almost an unrecognisable sport from the one which saw its first Test match played back in 1871. Read on as we use Stats Perform’s detailed rugby data to unearth the major ways the sport has evolved.
-
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
Obviously even high scoring games are not immune from mass stoppages or wasted minutes,
This is unsurprising, every try has at least a minute for the conversion built into and fluffing either side before and after it leading to the kick off.
-
@Nepia said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
@taniwharugby said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
Obviously even high scoring games are not immune from mass stoppages or wasted minutes,
This is unsurprising, every try has at least a minute for the conversion built into and fluffing either side before and after it leading to the kick off.
What constitutes ball in play?
-
@Snowy said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
If anyone is interested:
The Evolution of Rugby: A Statistical Analysis
Rugby Union is almost an unrecognisable sport from the one which saw its first Test match played back in 1871. Read on as we use Stats Perform’s detailed rugby data to unearth the major ways the sport has evolved.
That's why I am quite keen on the 'nipple line' tackle everywhere. Arms free, offloads, faster game, and it will have to happen anyway with the head impact legal stuff. Defenders will have to realise that sometimes you can't legally stop a player, if they get themselves to that point, good on them\
-
I don’t think we need the ball in play any more than it is already. Players are already rooted after 60-70mins, look at the last 10 of the NZ v Ireland or the France v SA game for the obvious fatigue setting in. And that’s after using the bench.
Time wasting should be clamped down on, but that’s all I’d focus on
-
-
@Machpants said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
Yup I think more ball in play and smaller benches = less humungous giants so less impact damage.
I'm definitely onboard with the "8 reserves but you can only use [4] of them" idea if we could get around the gaming for injuries
-
@voodoo said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
@Machpants said in Rugby World Cup general discussion:
Yup I think more ball in play and smaller benches = less humungous giants so less impact damage.
I'm definitely onboard with the "8 reserves but you can only use [4] of them" idea if qwe could get around the gaming for injuries
Boks already gaming injuries with HIA, to go with their slow down tactics on field. For me if someone has to come off, then you play with one less player after your 4/5 (I say 5, front row, one forward, one back) - it does already happen some times with the benches cleared
