Will South Africa throw the Samoa game?

magma69

Basically, the South Africans can ensure that they finish second in the pool (securing the easier route to the final) by throwing the game against Samoa. They would only need to score a bonus point (4 tries or finishing within 7 points) against Samoa in the final pool game to finish on 15 points. Even if Wales hammer Fiji, South Africa will qualify because they beat Wales. Samoa would go through as group winners, South Africa get Ireland in the QF and Wales go home having only lost 1 game by 1 point.

It would be horrible but it makes sense for SA to do it.

Sabre0001

All these complaints about the Australian media and yet...we apparently have topped the group already, and in some cases have made it to the semis.

France could beat NZ yet and top that pool. And there could be a shock on the cards. Nothing is settled yet...

magma69

Sabre0001 wrote: »

All these complaints about the Australian media and yet...we apparently have topped the group already, and in some cases have made it to the semis.

France could beat NZ yet and top that pool. And there could be a shock on the cards. Nothing is settled yet...

I acknowledge that. I'm just saying that it is a likely outcome. I think it's worth discussing as it's realistic.

Sabre0001

Sorry for not answering the question, I swear I meant to


I don't think they'll throw it.
a) It's about momentum - you should be growing in confidence in every game and if you take the foot off for one game, it may make it harder to get back up to that level.
b) If you lose a game, the idea of being unbeatable is gone. Look at NZ - they've played two poor sides in the pool yet have racked up masses of points, so people expect them to do well and are scared...
c) SA have won World Cups before and would consider themselves world beaters - as a result, they should feel that they don't fear teams.
d) Poor Tri-Nations. This is a big chance for redemption. They would relish the opportunity to be the SH representative.
e) We just beat Australia - a side that were, justifiably, tipped to do very well at this WC. Why would SA want to face equally stiff opposition? Assuming we do top the pool, we will get there by merit...

MungBean

Cant see them being that good as to be able dictate what points they will get from Samoa. It will be a must win for Samoa, the Boks wont be getting 4 tries easy and they wont risk allowing a Samoa win and trying to keep within 7. If it goes tits up they go home, they wont risk it.

roverjoyce

what about new Zealand throwing their game against france. It means they avoid australia/south africa/france till the final only have to beat england/wales/ireland to get to a final. Its a lot easier. Maybe both teams will try to throw it could make for a 0 0 draw.

TheHighRoad

Sabre0001 wrote: »

Sorry for not answering the question, I swear I meant to


I don't think they'll throw it.
a) It's about momentum - you should be growing in confidence in every game and if you take the foot off for one game, it may make it harder to get back up to that level.
b) If you lose a game, the idea of being unbeatable is gone. Look at NZ - they've played two poor sides in the pool yet have racked up masses of points, so people expect them to do well and are scared...
c) SA have won World Cups before and would consider themselves world beaters - as a result, they should feel that they don't fear teams.
d) Poor Tri-Nations. This is a big chance for redemption. They would relish the opportunity to be the SH representative.
e) We just beat Australia - a side that were, justifiably, tipped to do very well at this WC. Why would SA want to face equally stiff opposition? Assuming we do top the pool, we will get there by merit...

Agreed, plus South Africa throwing a game would be a huge concession basically implying that they are scared to face Australia or New Zealand. Also, what happens if France beat New Zealand or Ireland lose to Italy? Both scenarios are a lot more possible than most people think.

Also, maybe I am crazy but I get the feeling that SA would prefer to face Australia than us. Australia are a much better team but I feel as opponents they are more suited to SA's forward dominated play. Considering what we did to the Australian scrum and lineout, imagine what a first choice South African pack would do..

MungBean

roverjoyce wrote: »

what about new Zealand throwing their game against france. It means they avoid australia/south africa/france till the final only have to beat england/wales/ireland to get to a final. Its a lot easier. Maybe both teams will try to throw it could make for a 0 0 draw.

NZ are the home team and favourites to win. They will be aiming for a clean sheet. Getting beaten by France and being runners up in the group would not go down well with the public.

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

roverjoyce wrote: »

what about new Zealand throwing their game against france. It means they avoid australia/south africa/france till the final only have to beat england/wales/ireland to get to a final. Its a lot easier. Maybe both teams will try to throw it could make for a 0 0 draw.

the all blacks are afraid of no-one, and shouldn't be, especially after that australian performance.

theboss80

I don't think South Africa would now fancy taking the "easier" route by playing Ireland having witnessed what we did to Australia. Look its as simple as this , the World Cup is the biggest rugby tournament we have so if you are going to call yourselves worthy champions then you play to win and whoever that throws up in the next round you must beat them aswell. Trying to manufacture a less difficult route is a massive gamble

scriba

Sabre0001 wrote: »

I don't think they'll throw it.
a) It's about momentum - you should be growing in confidence in every game and if you take the foot off for one game, it may make it harder to get back up to that level.
b) If you lose a game, the idea of being unbeatable is gone. Look at NZ - they've played two poor sides in the pool yet have racked up masses of points, so people expect them to do well and are scared...
c) SA have won World Cups before and would consider themselves world beaters - as a result, they should feel that they don't fear teams.
d) Poor Tri-Nations. This is a big chance for redemption. They would relish the opportunity to be the SH representative.
e) We just beat Australia - a side that were, justifiably, tipped to do very well at this WC. Why would SA want to face equally stiff opposition? Assuming we do top the pool, we will get there by merit...

Agreed. And if you look back to John Smit's post-match interview after the Wales game, he said essentially that they were treating the group stages as their warm up, to build momentum and get their match sharpness. To lose deliberately just isn't in their make-up, even if there was any logic to it. This side has beaten all top teams, they wouldn't fear anyone.

Reloc8

No team has ever won the world cup having been beaten in a pool game. Only England (twice - 1997 and 2007) have made it to the final after suffering defeat in the pool stages.

Nobody gonna throw nuthin.

Mister Dread

Reloc8 wrote: »

No team has ever won the world cup having been beaten in a pool game. Only England (twice - 1997 and 2007) have made it to the final after suffering defeat in the pool stages.

Nobody gonna throw nuthin.

I don't think that is a law set in stone. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some "quirky" results in the next few weeks. Ireland have really blown this world cup apart.

donbon

I would hope that teams would have too much pride to do something like that. It's cowardly & I wouldn't have any respect for a team with tactics like that.

Fight_Night

I think France are more likely to beat NZ than we were to beat Australia. But to answer your question, no definitely not, SA will not throw any matches I suppose they wouldn't mind coming second so the world wouldn't end for them if they did lose the match which might impact on their motivation to perform but certainly I'm sure they will go into the match with the attitude that they want to win.

cgpg5

I think it shows a major flaw in the system, for example, had Wales beaten SA which they nearly did, they then would have got Aus in quarters, and we would've got SA which would be the worse draw for both teams and a poor reward for topping group. Hard to know any alternative way but the way the current system works we will prob see France putting out a complete second string next week, and SA doing the same against Samoa.

circos

cgpg5 wrote: »

I think it shows a major flaw in the system, for example, had Wales beaten SA which they nearly did, they then would have got Aus in quarters, and we would've got SA which would be the worse draw for both teams and a poor reward for topping group. Hard to know any alternative way but the way the current system works we will prob see France putting out a complete second string next week, and SA doing the same against Samoa.

Its not a flaw its 1st in one pool against 2nd in another. Doesn't matter who finishes where.

If it was 1st against 1st or 2nd against 2nd then it would make no sense.

cgpg5

circos wrote: »

Its not a flaw its 1st in one pool against 2nd in another. Doesn't matter who finishes where.

If it was 1st against 1st or 2nd against 2nd then it would make no sense.

I know what you're saying but I feel many teams feel it would be advantageous to come second in certain circumstances. Which shouldn't be the case. Perhaps 5 groups of 4 as in 1999, with only 3 runners-up qualifying?

Mister Dread

There is no flaw. The groups are seeded and QFs are setup in the most logical way. What happens after that is just down to the games. My only issue is that the seedings were used too far in advance of the tournament.

Podge_irl

No one is going to throw a game.

conf101

Mister Dread wrote: »

There is no flaw. The groups are seeded and QFs are setup in the most logical way. What happens after that is just down to the games. My only issue is that the seedings were used too far in advance of the tournament.

Exactly. It may seem to you that by coming second in your group you'll actually get an easier QF draw but that's often subjective.

As regards throwing any game - it's a fierce risky strategy to go in thinking 'right lads, we'll lose this but only by 6 points, that way we get our ideal QF draw.' Can't see professional sportsmen taking that risk.

circos

cgpg5 wrote: »

I know what you're saying but I feel many teams feel it would be advantageous to come second in certain circumstances. Which shouldn't be the case. Perhaps 5 groups of 4 as in 1999, with only 3 runners-up qualifying?

The circumstances is one team being better than the other, which makes them deserved winners of the pool. I know what you mean but this is only coming to light now because we beat Australia.

I don't think SA would fancy us in the quarters..after seeing how the Aussies were taken down they should feel comfortable of doing the same thing to them.

SA would have to be able to control the exact amount of points Samoa get against them to finish second...i don't think any team can control that.

I just don't think teams will think about that. Its win win win at this stage, any loss can be detrimental to a teams whole tournament.

durkadurka

Podge_irl wrote: »

No one is going to throw a game.

Abolutely, totally not in nz or saffers DNA to throw a game.

Jawgap

Doubt either SA or NZ will throw anything except maybe a few punches!!

It's just not in their nature to be that cynical - plus, regardless of who they face they'll fancy themselves, and rightly so too. They'll fear no one and expect others to be scared sh1tless of them.

SA are my tip to win the tournament:)

cgpg5

Jawgap wrote: »

Doubt either SA or NZ will throw anything except maybe a few punches!!

It's just not in their nature to be that cynical - plus, regardless of who they face they'll fancy themselves, and rightly so too. They'll fear no one and expect others to be scared sh1tless of them.

SA are my tip to win the tournament

Agreed, I think they'll steadily improve as the tournament goes on and they're not half as talked up as NZ and Australia (before yesterday).

dtpc191991

No self respecting professional team would pull a stunt like throwing a game. It would be a disgrace to the sport and would send a very negative message about the way the team think.

Mister Dread

dtpc191991 wrote: »

No self respecting professional team would pull a stunt like throwing a game. It would be a disgrace to the sport and would send a very negative message about the way the team think.

No, they just send out the b-team.

matthew8

Throwing a game is unthinkable, the ultimate disgrace for a sports coach. Besides, we beat Australia, we're better than Australia, why would they want to face the better of 2 teams? You have to go through the best teams to win the world cup, and you can't get around it. South Africa are one of 2 teams that can beat NZ in NZ. They have no one to fear.

dfx-

South Africa are more than capable of losing in New Zealand all by themselves from an imperious position than needing to throw anything. They have done it more times than I care to remember :mad:

B0X

I was reading a south african forum there where they also have a similar discussion going. They were talking about the merits of putting out a second string side against Samoa and telling them to "Take it easy".

It'd be awful to see, but we won't know until their team is announced for it!

endabob1

Zero Chance of SA throwing their game, after the welsh game there was almost riots, the performance yesterday lifted everyone, they'll need to keep the momentum by wining every game.

marco_polo

Are some people seriously suggesting that SA would allow themselves to be seen trying to avoid their Tri nations rivals?

Aside from pride which would be the number one factor, a QF against Australia would exactly not cause them any sleepless nights. Also as they would not view simply getting to the RWC final as some sort of achievement, but rather winning the whole thing, they would figure on almost certainly having to beat the AB at some point anyway.

swordofislam

If the Bokke threw a match to get us instead of the Aussies their nerves would be so fried that they would probably lose!

Then home to the Veld to be sjambokked to death while their corpses would be thrown to hyenas.

.ak

The funny thing is before the Oz match I was convinced we were going to lose (as did most here, whilst we all had hope... lol), and I was already thinking about the Italy game and possibly the SA game. I was convinced that we'd have a better chance against these guys (as opposed to Oz) as our pack are our biggest weapon and if we get into an arm wrestle we might just edge them - so in essence getting to play Oz at pool stage was a lot better than facing them in a knockout game.

Turns out I was wrong...

But still, I'm mega nervous about the Italy game. More so than an SA or Welsh QF... WE need a bonus point against Russia, and we need to put on a MAJOR performance against Italy and not falter at the last hurdle...

swordofislam

.ak wrote: »

we need to put on a MAJOR performance against Italy and not falter at the last hurdle...

We need to put in that performance without O'Driscoll or Ferris.

irishbucsfan

swordofislam wrote: »

We need to put in that performance without O'Driscoll or Ferris.

You can be fairly certain O'Driscoll and Ferris will play against Italy, whether or not they play against Russia.

The first team will definitely play that one.

Kayless

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You can be fairly certain O'Driscoll and Ferris will play against Italy, whether or not they play against Russia.

The first team will definitely play that one.

We could do it without O'Driscoll but not Ferris, the only think that worries me right now is injuries, god forbid we lose Ross or Healy.

Thanos

Kayless wrote: »

We could do it without O'Driscoll but not Ferris, the only think that worries me right now is injuries, god forbid we lose Ross or Healy.

Add Best to that front low list also...................

.ak

swordofislam wrote: »

We need to put in that performance without O'Driscoll or Ferris.

Hmm, I don't know, with the mental attitude of the team at the moment I think the guys will be looking like winning each game on it's merit.. and Italy is still our penalty-shootout if you will. It psychologically is massive, and if Kidney doesn't put out a pretty strong starting XV they guys will read into it, and think we've won it before we have.

The Italians will definitely be licking their lips if BOD doesn't start.

drbeatz

This is ridiculous. At the end of the day. Teams top there pool because they have performed best in the group. Would you prefer play a team that performed best or second best??

There is no easy routes from here. Ireland have to have the mind set that they can beat anyone. Just like New Zealand just like every other team in the tournament.

Could you even imagine back room staff sitting down with the players discussing how to not only win the game but shape it so it fulfills there mathematical requirements.

Not only that but im sure it would fall under match fixing. Which is not only against IRB law but against The law

magma69

Former All Blacks No.8 Zinzan Brooke has caused controversy by saying he hopes New Zealand are beaten by France in Saturday's Pool A encounter.
The All Blacks are big favourites to win clash at Eden Park and avenge their shock defeats to Les Bleus in 1999 and 2007.
However with Australia's 15-6 loss to Ireland turning the tournament on its head, Brooke would rather his countrymen lost to France in the pool stages than risk facing the Wallabies in the knockout stages.
"It is the first time that I have ever said this but I want the All Blacks to lose," said Brooke, who is one of the Heineken Ambassadors for Rugby World Cup 2011.
"I want us to lose. I am finding it hard to say that but I don't want us to play Australia in the semi-final."
However fellow ambassador Scott Quinnell believes that it is a game that France will also want to lose.
Speaking on Heineken's online video series, This is the Game, Quinnell said: "It will be a 0-0 thriller as France don't want win and New Zealand don't want to win.
"We know which France side will turn up on Saturday, it will be the bad one. They want the bad one (to show up), they don't want the fluid one. When you look at it they won't particularly want to win. If they do, then brilliant."

http://www1.skysports.com/rugbyworldcup/story/12337/7195175

Brooke says what a lot of people are thinking.

andrewdcs

not in a million years, "Crazy" JDV isn't THAT Crazy.

anything can happen ANYTHING so to try to fix a game of your own for some chance at an "easier" run in is ludicrous. No one really knows (I suspect ABs will run riot) what will happen in tomorrows games.


This isn't olympic boxing, there are WAY too many variables / people involved for any conspiracy.

LostPassword

Samoa might win without SA throwing the match. They're pretty darned good and were cruelly unlucky to lose their OH before the Wales game - with him I think they would have won.

Also, both teams in the NZ vs France game will be absolutely determined to win.

part time punk

andrewdcs wrote: »

anything can happen ANYTHING so to try to fix a game of your own for some chance at an "easier" run in is ludicrous. [/QUOTE

+ 1

All this talk of easy halves of the draw is bull****

Pisco Sour

circos wrote: »

Its not a flaw its 1st in one pool against 2nd in another. Doesn't matter who finishes where.

If it was 1st against 1st or 2nd against 2nd then it would make no sense.

As insane as it sounds, they actually did this in the 1954 FIFA World Cup. Hungary and Germany were in the one group. Hungary beat Germany 8-3 to top the pool and so went into the tougher side of the draw with all the group winners. They got lumps knocked out of them in scrambling past Brazil and Uruguay, while Germany played all the 2nd place teams and cruised to the final.

In the final a fresh Germany beat an exhausted Hungary.

Off topic of course, but thought I'd share that lunacy with everyone.

Samoa still have to beat Fiji before any of this "throwing the game" lark becomes even remotely possible.

RonBo88

They can all throw as many games as they like.

Ireland v Italy is the very last pool match of the tournament, and therefore it will be Kidney and co. who decide every teams route to the final, and there's nothing any other team in the tournament can do about it... except Italy of course :]

headmaster

You people on here must have very suspicious characters to think like you do. I know I wouldn't employ any of you with your mindsets. Suspicion halts the guilty mind, I guess you guys have cheated many times in your lives, ha?

thomond2006

headmaster wrote: »

You people on here must have very suspicious characters to think like you do. I know I wouldn't employ any of you with your mindsets. Suspicion halts the guilty mind, I guess you guys have cheated many times in your lives, ha?

Apt username.

magma69

headmaster wrote: »

You people on here must have very suspicious characters to think like you do. I know I wouldn't employ any of you with your mindsets. Suspicion halts the guilty mind, I guess you guys have cheated many times in your lives, ha?

:pac::P

I did go over easily to earn my team a penalty to win us the game in our under 12 football cup semi final.

Seriously though, I'd say you're naive rather than the suspicious ones being sneaky. This stuff happens in sport quite often. There's constant revelations regarding shenanigans in professional sport. Especially, when there's a lot of money involved.