South Africa v Ireland, Match Thread

kuang1

Are some of ye guys retired/on holidays?!!
There's some amount of man hours gone into this (very repetitive) stuff!!

(I can only post during a toilet break! )

leakyboots

kuang1 wrote: »

Are some of ye guys retired/on holidays?!!
There's some amount of man hours gone into this (very repetitive) stuff!!

(I can only post during a toilet break! )

You need to take longer with your ****s, they're to be savoured, not rushed

Billysays no

moving away from the stander debate the rotation argument I think could be crucial over the next games. Coetzee will be under huge pressure to win the second test. He has got a barrage of critism for the loss of the first test. So you can expect him to freshen up his squad significantly. You can also expect that he will return to the tried and tested physicality gameplan of the Springboks.

So lets say we stick pretty much with what we have (Stander aside) and we get into a physical brute of a game which SA win. Then we really are in deep trouble. We now have a team thats fought their socks off and they will be tired (higher altitude is not going to help either).

So we enter the third test out on our feet but Joe sticks with the same team because this is the team he sets his stand by. I really wouldn't fancy our chances if this is how things turn out.

As such I think Joe simply has no choice but the freshen the team up for the second test to guarantee we have a team left for the third test without having to simply change it up completely for that test. I think it would be a big mistake to put all your eggs in one basket and simply go all out for the second test with an unchanged side.

kuang1

leakyboots wrote: »

You need to take longer with your ****s, they're to be savoured, not rushed

I'd say there's some on here who just stay on the jax until their next sh1te comes along!
(Pins and needles surely a danger there though?!)

bilston

Billysays no wrote: »

moving away from the stander debate the rotation argument I think could be crucial over the next games. Coetzee will be under huge pressure to win the second test. He has got a barrage of critism for the loss of the first test. So you can expect him to freshen up his squad significantly. You can also expect that he will return to the tried and tested physicality gameplan of the Springboks.

So lets say we stick pretty much with what we have (Stander aside) and we get into a physical brute of a game which SA win. Then we really are in deep trouble. We now have a team thats fought their socks off and they will be tired (higher altitude is not going to help either).

So we enter the third test out on our feet but Joe sticks with the same team because this is the team he sets his stand by. I really wouldn't fancy our chances if this is how things turn out.

As such I think Joe simply has no choice but the freshen the team up for the second test to guarantee we have a team left for the third test without having to simply change it up completely for that test. I think it would be a big mistake to put all your eggs in one basket and simply go all out for the second test with an unchanged side.

The only unforced change I'd make is to give Furlong a start with Ruddock being a straight replacement for Stander.

jm08

Billysays no wrote: »

We now have a team thats fought their socks off and they will be tired (higher altitude is not going to help either).

Decending to a lower altitude the following week will mean that they will find it much easier.

Irish lads should be fairly fresh as without European involvement, they have had a fairly easy end of season.

Billysays no

bilston wrote: »

The only unforced change I'd make is to give Furlong a start with Ruddock being a straight replacement for Stander.

I would agree with this. But then I'd propose something a bit radical (right down joe's street :-)). If Coetzee is going to throw a physical game at us then lets switch it around on him. Lets use Reddan or Marmion rather than the constant crash ball from Murray. Lets change the centre partnership to have Marshall and Olding. Lets put Healy on the wing. Lets Use Strauss instead of best and lets put bealham instead of mcgrath. Lets start dillane. And lets start henderson in the backrow. Now you freshened your team and it its still a strong team. Just a thought

CMOTDibbler

Billysays no wrote: »

I would agree with this. But then I'd propose something a bit radical (right down joe's street :-)). If Coetzee is going to throw a physical game at us then lets switch it around on him. Lets use Reddan or Marmion rather than the constant crash ball from Murray. Lets change the centre partnership to have Marshall and Olding. Lets put Healy on the wing. Lets Use Strauss instead of best and lets put bealham instead of mcgrath. Lets start dillane. And lets start henderson in the backrow. Now you freshened your team and it its still a strong team. Just a thought

I think you've been asked this before, but the more I read this stuff, the more I also have to ask the question: Did you actually watch the match?

stephen_n

Billysays no wrote: »

moving away from the stander debate the rotation argument I think could be crucial over the next games. Coetzee will be under huge pressure to win the second test. He has got a barrage of critism for the loss of the first test. So you can expect him to freshen up his squad significantly. You can also expect that he will return to the tried and tested physicality gameplan of the Springboks.

So lets say we stick pretty much with what we have (Stander aside) and we get into a physical brute of a game which SA win. Then we really are in deep trouble. We now have a team thats fought their socks off and they will be tired (higher altitude is not going to help either).

So we enter the third test out on our feet but Joe sticks with the same team because this is the team he sets his stand by. I really wouldn't fancy our chances if this is how things turn out.

As such I think Joe simply has no choice but the freshen the team up for the second test to guarantee we have a team left for the third test without having to simply change it up completely for that test. I think it would be a big mistake to put all your eggs in one basket and simply go all out for the second test with an unchanged side.

Apart from your completely myopic view of rugby, what evidence is there to suggest we will?

Billysays no

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I think you've been asked this before, but the more I read this stuff, the more I also have to ask the question: Did you actually watch the match?

will leave that alone in future :-). can already feel a combined sigh of relief :-)

CMOTDibbler

Billysays no wrote: »

will leave that alone in future :-). can already feel a combined sigh of relief :-)

No offence Billy but there was very little crash ball from Murray on show last weekend. We were getting the ball out to the wings quite a lot and there was good hands on display. Even when down a man, we varied the point of attack quite a bit.

Dog Botherer

Billysays no wrote: »

I would agree with this. But then I'd propose something a bit radical (right down joe's street :-)). If Coetzee is going to throw a physical game at us then lets switch it around on him. Lets use Reddan or Marmion rather than the constant crash ball from Murray. Lets change the centre partnership to have Marshall and Olding. Lets put Healy on the wing. Lets Use Strauss instead of best and lets put bealham instead of mcgrath. Lets start dillane. And lets start henderson in the backrow. Now you freshened your team and it its still a strong team. Just a thought

So let's get this straight. You want to drop our captain (and most experienced player to boot), break up an immensely effective centre partnership by dropping our most experienced centre, drop one of the hugely experienced pair of Trimble and Earls, and drop McGrath, who has probably been our best player for the past two seasons. On top of that, you want to drop the best scrum half in the NH just days after he played his best ever game for his country, and bring in either a geriatric in terrible form or a relatively inexperienced rookie who's never started a game of consequence for Ireland.

Seek help.

Adbrowne

Dog Botherer wrote: »

So let's get this straight. You want to drop our captain (and most experienced player to boot), break up an immensely effective centre partnership by dropping our most experienced centre, drop one of the hugely experienced pair of Trimble and Earls, and drop McGrath, who has probably been our best player for the past two seasons. On top of that, you want to drop the best scrum half in the NH just days after he played his best ever game for his country, and bring in either a geriatric in terrible form or a relatively inexperienced rookie who's never started a game of consequence for Ireland.

Seek help.

Ulsters last game was 20th may, Munster was the 7th. Leinster had 3 weekends off after the 6n and connacht had 2 when the ERCC was ongoing. I dont think that there will be any issues with fitness/freshness. Changes will be minimal and rightly so.

Billysays no

stephen_n wrote: »

Apart from your completely myopic view of rugby, what evidence is there to suggest we will?

There are two possibilities. One we win. Two we lose. Maybe a draw but unlikely. So my 'myopic' view (thanks for clearing that up) is we need to pick a team considering both eventualities. Nothing more, nothing less.

Adbrowne

Billysays no wrote: »

There are two possibilities. One we win. Two we lose. Maybe a draw but unlikely. So my 'myopic' view (thanks for clearing that up) is we need to pick a team considering both eventualities. Nothing more, nothing less.

JS picks the team to win this weekend. Nothing else matters

stephen_n

Billysays no wrote: »

There are two possibilities. One we win. Two we lose. Maybe a draw but unlikely. So my 'myopic' view (thanks for clearing that up) is we need to pick a team considering both eventualities. Nothing more, nothing less.

What has your response got to do with my post?

Billysays no

stephen_n wrote: »

What has your response got to do with my post?

Maybe you need to explain your point better?

stephen_n

The point I highlighted in your post, was what lead to my response. I thought it was quite clear tbh.

Billysays no

nope. don't get it just yet.

Billysays no

Adbrowne wrote: »

JS picks the team to win this weekend. Nothing else matters

you dont ever pick a team to lose a game. but you do pick a team to cover the possibilities. anything else would be (i'm trying to find the right word) incorrect

Adbrowne

Billysays no wrote: »

you dont ever pick a team to lose a game. but you do pick a team to cover the possibilities. anything else would be (i'm trying to find the right word) incorrect

what possibilities?

Ardillaun

The impact with power and pace argument sounds plausible. Does it work? Do the stats bear it out? If Dillane has so much pace, why not start him?

I can see a negative form of this strategy being credible i.e. a player with limited stamina being better for a short shift.

WarZ

Billysays no wrote: »

moving away from the stander debate the rotation argument I think could be crucial over the next games. Coetzee will be under huge pressure to win the second test. He has got a barrage of critism for the loss of the first test. So you can expect him to freshen up his squad significantly. You can also expect that he will return to the tried and tested physicality gameplan of the Springboks.

So lets say we stick pretty much with what we have (Stander aside) and we get into a physical brute of a game which SA win. Then we really are in deep trouble. We now have a team thats fought their socks off and they will be tired (higher altitude is not going to help either).

So we enter the third test out on our feet but Joe sticks with the same team because this is the team he sets his stand by. I really wouldn't fancy our chances if this is how things turn out.

As such I think Joe simply has no choice but the freshen the team up for the second test to guarantee we have a team left for the third test without having to simply change it up completely for that test. I think it would be a big mistake to put all your eggs in one basket and simply go all out for the second test with an unchanged side.

The true genius of your posts go way over some peoples heads. Thank you for giving me a chuckle this morning

Clegg

Thornley is suggesting that Olding, Gilroy, Ruddock and Dillane could all start this weekend. Marshall, Earls and Murphy to be rested. Hendo and Ruddock into the backrow and Olding to 12.

CMOTDibbler

Billysays no wrote: »

and we get into a physical brute of a game

stephen_n wrote: »

Apart from your completely myopic view of rugby, what evidence is there to suggest we will?

Billysays no wrote: »

nope. don't get it just yet.

Now do you get it?

awec

Locked.