RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland
-
Fascinating how lots of Bok media are talking about how it doesn’t matter if they lose this game and actually they’d be better if they lose this game and this is a good game to experiment with 7-1 because this game doesn’t matter. Almost as though they’re not as confident that they’re the best team in the world as they say they are
-
Saw an interesting interview with ROG on rugby pass where one strategy he described to play the Boks was to not go around but go through (as ABs have with success when they’ve done it right) but to also look for flailing arms in the rush defence and literally try and get them carded.
-
@game_film the Irish, Peter Stringer in particular invented the flailing arms, aka the seagull....
-
@game_film that interview is posted on another thread. it was very refreshing to hear someone say something sensible about dealing with rush defence finally, just a shame it wasn't a NZer.
we still seem to think the best way to deal with it is a shitload of short kicks, combined with getting caught behind the advantage line. which is a particular fucking travesty when we have had the world's best passing halfback in the side for about a decade. -
@reprobate short Inter-passing between forwards. Don’t die with the ball if you can. If not, quick Rick and go again.
You don’t have to smash the rush defenders. Just negate them.
And once you suck the defence in, the space is there wider out to exploit.
-
@taniwharugby said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:
While in the scheme of the RWC, win or lose doesn't matter to SA, but it makes the Scottish match for Ireland even more important, surely both SA and Ire want to win, but given Irelands history it is a higger match for them, if they lose this, does it start to create some doubt of themselves with knock out rugby from there on.
I tend to agree. SA will shrug a loss of while Ireland would be on cloud 9 confidence. But an ire loss and the doubts will set in. Especially if the pack can’t cope.
-
@stodders agreed, if the forwards have the skills and aren't going to make handling errors. or a 10 who plays flat and passes flat and fast (McKenzie our best option as of now), but guys like Larkham come to mind.
The main point is you are not trying to play around it until it is on to do so, so decision making at 9/10 is key. Until then you play against the weakness of the rush, bring the point at which you are trying to create gaps / break the line closer, and use the shorter time they have to align themselves against them. you are still at the advantage line, so even when they hit you don't lose ground, and you are giving them hard targets rather than midfielders who are getting the ball and man at the same time. making tackles on moving guys at angles who you are trying to rush with little time to react, it is hard to get dominant tackles in, and cards are a real risk for people failing to get low or throwing arms out. -
I’m not sure about that. They have built some resilience in this Irish team.
Just look at last year in NZ. Got pasted in the 1st test and won the next 2.
I can’t see them getting beat up in the forwards no matter how good SA believe they are
-
they do have weaknesses, and the opposition have been making bundee aki look like jonah in this WC.
but you don't win 27 out of 29 or whatever it is against good opposition unless you're the real deal. they are very well-drilled and very, very cohesive. solid set-piece and all know their roles, and manipulate defences cleverly. -
@DaGrubster that’s because they knew Foster was back for tests 2 and 3 😂
-
@DaGrubster we got some luck in the test we won, Ireland had been hard on attack and then a ball got dropped and we went 90m and then had an excellent 10 mins that sealed it, hardly pasted them.
I think this SA team will bring some heat the Irish havent had, if they can handle that, then it will press thier championship credentials further, and if they can get past SA, Scotland, NZ, Eng? and then SA/France, then they will well and truly have earnt the mantle as the best.
But a stumble here, it makes the Scottish match, for Ireland, huge.
-
@Halfout said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:
To be honest I think the concern is that a 7:1 split will encourage bigger NFL style forwards who will blow themselves out in 45/50 minutes, leading to bigger collisions and more head injuries, rather than SA not playing fair. I think it’s a justifiable concern at a time when the health of players and the potential financial impact for World Rugby and individual Unions are major worries.
Wait a minute. Aren't SA gambling on getting through the game without a back even getting injured? Less time on the field should reduce injuries to forwards too.
Maybe they've got it right in terms of safety?
-
@Billy-Tell said in RWC Week 3: Springboks v Ireland:
I’m picking Ireland. Reckon for once they will be the business at the RWC. If Ireland man up in the forwards and diffuse the bombs what else do SA have to offer?
A pact.
Amazingly advanced communication devices.
Incredibly tolerant and forgiving fanbase.
Spectators high on participation.One of the above might not be accurate.
-
@Bones this is a brilliant point re injury. Fresh players get injured less.
My objection isn’t 7-1 vs 6-2 or specifically size of players, It’s the number of subs full stop - nothing to do with injury, merely because rugby is interesting when players get tired.
Haven’t seen it but sure it’s been discussed, Ross Tucker’s podcast and views on the injury side of this question is great.
-
Really don’t know how this will go. The springboks have been trying to play a more high tempo game. Nienaber emphasized this after the last game. Think they will try the bludgeon helter skelter disruptive approach. And I don’t think SA are confident of a win at all. But Ireland are. Not sure that’s good for Ireland. But I would prefer to play France anyway.
