South Africa v Ireland, Second Test. Match Thread

First Up · 20-06-2016 8:46am

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Schmidt made a fatal error not substituting the tired players sooner.
Marmion and Madigan should have been on around 55-60 mins.
As soon as we were 16 points ahead and players were flagging the bench should have been emptied.
I think Schmidt underestimated the tiredness until too late.
Also anyone claiming the bench was weak are deluded.
That bench was fine, it just wasn't used early enough.
Simply, if you keep tired players on the pitch it makes the other players have to work harder to defend and slows down the overall linespeed.
If players had been on earlier then the other players could have relaxed a bit more, knowing a fresh player could cover them.

It wasn't a matter of Schmidt guessing about the players. Every player is monitored constantly. The management team know exactly how each player is doing at all times. That would be the major factor in the timing of substitutions but he also has to think about the disruption factor.

But saying that Joe didn't know guys were tiring is nonsense.

WeleaseWoderick · 20-06-2016 9:14am

Very disappointing not to be able to hold on after a seriously impressive first half showing.

The players were completely out on their feet by the end though and were falling off tackles they'd normally make all the time.

Thankfully, the 3rd test is back at sea level but I'm not sure whether our lads will be recovered fully as that is now two massive efforts put in.

Jump_In_Jack · 20-06-2016 9:21am

First Up wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Schmidt made a fatal error not substituting the tired players sooner.
Marmion and Madigan should have been on around 55-60 mins.
As soon as we were 16 points ahead and players were flagging the bench should have been emptied.
I think Schmidt underestimated the tiredness until too late.
Also anyone claiming the bench was weak are deluded.
That bench was fine, it just wasn't used early enough.
Simply, if you keep tired players on the pitch it makes the other players have to work harder to defend and slows down the overall linespeed.
If players had been on earlier then the other players could have relaxed a bit more, knowing a fresh player could cover them.

It wasn't a matter of Schmidt guessing about the players. Every player is monitored constantly. The management team know exactly how each player is doing at all times. That would be the major factor in the timing of substitutions but he also has to think about the disruption factor.

But saying that Joe didn't know guys were tiring is nonsense.

He didn't act early enough, the facts remain, that the subs didn't come on early enough.
Whatever technology tracking etc was available didn't make a difference unfortunately.

It's pointless having subs and not using them.
I'd rather see the subs get a run with a 16 point lead and time to get up to speed with the match, than wait til the players are leaking tries through tiredness and bring on a token sub with a few minutes to go.

I don't buy the notion that the subs are not good enough to make an impact for 20 minutes.

Nift · 20-06-2016 9:47am

First Up wrote: »

It wasn't a matter of Schmidt guessing about the players. Every player is monitored constantly. The management team know exactly how each player is doing at all times. That would be the major factor in the timing of substitutions but he also has to think about the disruption factor.

But saying that Joe didn't know guys were tiring is nonsense.

Well he still handled it badly.

awec · 20-06-2016 10:14am

I think it was just a simple mistake of underestimating how badly players would fatigue.

I'm sure he could see the fatigue on the laptops but I reckon the plan was for them to play longer.

pickarooney · 20-06-2016 10:22am

All their tries came off players running low and hard at us and our players bouncing off shins.

First Up · 20-06-2016 10:35am

awec wrote: »

I think it was just a simple mistake of underestimating how badly players would fatigue.

I'm sure he could see the fatigue on the laptops but I reckon the plan was for them to play longer.

I don't think it made any difference. The SA bench was far stronger and their guys who played 80 were much better able to last the pace as well. It took New Zealand a pile of attempts to win a series in SA. A touring squad up against the full resources of SA rugby on the high Veldt is one of the biggest challenges in the game. The criticism of players and of Schmidt is mis-placed and ill-informed.

awec · 20-06-2016 10:38am

First Up wrote: »

I don't think it made any difference. The SA bench was far stronger and their guys who played 80 were much better able to last the pace as well. It took New Zealand a pile of attempts to win a series in SA. A touring squad up against the full resources of SA rugby on the high Veldt is one of the biggest challenges in the game. The criticism of players and of Schmidt is mis-placed and ill-informed.

Ah come on, it made a huge difference. We had guys on who were out on their feet, glorified empty shirts in defence.

The bench may have been a step down in quality but would have introduced some much needed freshness at least. Murray and Jackson were totally busted.

Buer · 20-06-2016 10:45am

The fatigue absolutely played a huge part. But the issue is also that our bench isn't strong enough. Who that came off the bench actually made a notably positive impact on the game? Donnacha Ryan got 30 minutes. Reidy got 16 minutes. Bealham got 20 minutes. Kilcoyne and Strauss got 15 minutes each. They had enough time to do something. We were well ahead with all those players on the field.

The backs should have been changed up but it's hard to take off those halfbacks when they're absolutely key to the team.

former total · 20-06-2016 10:52am

BTW, it's been confirmed that TOH did indeed get 4 minutes so three new caps on Saturday.

Buer is right though, the subs who did come on made very little impact. If they were raring to go, they hid it well.

First Up · 20-06-2016 10:53am

awec wrote: »

Ah come on, it made a huge difference. We had guys on who were out on their feet, glorified empty shirts in defence.

The bench may have been a step down in quality but would have introduced some much needed freshness at least. Murray and Jackson were totally busted.

We were still ahead when the subs came on.

sydthebeat · 20-06-2016 11:32am

First Up wrote: »

We were still ahead when the subs came on.

We were being battered from the 48th minute onwards

mfceiling · 20-06-2016 11:32am

former total wrote: »

BTW, it's been confirmed that TOH did indeed get 4 minutes

If they were raring to go, they hid it well.

To be fair 4 minutes wouldn't give you a chance to do much.

First Up · 20-06-2016 11:37am

sydthebeat wrote: »

We were being battered from the 48th minute onwards

So you agree that the subs didn't make any difference?

Jump_In_Jack · 20-06-2016 12:08pm

Just for the record,
Tries came 55, 63, 69, 75, and last penalty came at 80.
3 out of 4 tries were converted.
If we had held out just one of the converted tries we would have won.
If the 3 sub backs had been on at 55-60 minutes we could have seen a difference.
The forward subs did come on roughly in good time.
Perhaps Best and McGrth could have gone off a bit before their eventual exit at 65 mins.
Also perhaps Henderson could have gone off for Reidy before the 70th minute.
With margins so thin, and a few costly errors between Jackson and the backs (crossing when on their 22, and knock on due to miscommunication) perhaps with fresh legs those mistakes could have been avoided and we could have kept possession better towards the end of the match.

molloyjh · 20-06-2016 12:20pm

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Just for the record,
Tries came 55, 63, 69, 75, and last penalty came at 80.
3 out of 4 tries were converted.
If we had held out just one of the converted tries we would have won.
If the 3 sub backs had been on at 55-60 minutes we could have seen a difference.
The forward subs did come on roughly in good time.
Perhaps Best and McGrth could have gone off a bit before their eventual exit at 65 mins.
Also perhaps Henderson could have gone off for Reidy before the 70th minute.
With margins so thin, and a few costly errors between Jackson and the backs (crossing when on their 22, and knock on due to miscommunication) perhaps with fresh legs those mistakes could have been avoided and we could have kept possession better towards the end of the match.

And if the 3 replacement backs came on at 55-60 mins then we would have had nobody on the bench to replace Henshaw when he got injured. So it's hard to look at it in hindsight like that really.

Also, had SA been pinged for blocking Murray for the try from the quick line-out we'd have had a penalty instead of them a try. Had we not ballsed up a move off a scrum in their half we might have gotten points there as well. Had SA not gotten away with numerous side entries on their own rucks....

Should've, would've, could've. At the end of the day there's a number of things that could have been done differently by a number of people. But the tough game last week, altitude and the seriously large difference in benches were always going to leave us with a bit of a mountain to climb in the last quarter. With several players missing we just didn't have the depth to compete at the end. Killer was a complete passenger, Strauss was poor by his standard, Ryan was fairly anonymous for the most part, Reidy is a long way off the level required etc.

It was a kick in the nuts to blow that lead, and I did think Heaslips try would see their heads drop. But they knew we'd run out of steam and they just kept coming at us. And now we're going into the last test with some very important players having put in some serious shifts over the last couple of weeks. On the other hand SA are ramping up. I think SA are rightly favourites now for the series, but it's still credit to the squad that they are still in with a shot. There's been a lot of positives. Furlong, Dillane, Ruddock, Murphy, Jackson, Marshall and Payne at FB all stand out, most of which are young guys with real futures for the Ireland side.

And you can't help but think that with a full strength squad we'd have sown up the series on Saturday....

thomond2006 · 20-06-2016 12:28pm

I had never heard of Ruan Combrinck. I have now.

sydthebeat · 20-06-2016 12:34pm

First Up wrote: »

So you agree that the subs didn't make any difference?

I agree that the significant factor was the altitude, not the bench.

First Up · 20-06-2016 12:34pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

I agree that the significant factor was the altitude, not the bench.

I agree

molloyjh · 20-06-2016 1:06pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

I agree that the significant factor was the altitude, not the bench.

I'm not sure about that. I think there may have been a bit of six of one, half dozen of the other. The altitude was always going to be a huge issue, but if we had better options off the bench they probably would have been used earlier and made a greater impact. We just had a very callow bench overall which delayed the use of them and meant they had feck all impact.

Jump_In_Jack · 20-06-2016 2:24pm

It must be very disappointing if not completely embarrassing for the 3 backs on the bench, not to be given the chance to help the team.
The try to take the lead came in 75th minute, conversion on 76th minute, and then the 3 sub backs came on.
For me it's disappointing, because I believe we have great potential in our subs, but clearly the coach, who is the closest to the players, doesn't believe in them at all.

Hagz · 20-06-2016 2:26pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx5jYzgZEzk

Hagz · 20-06-2016 2:29pm

Like he says. In a game so close, it's not an easy decision to take off players who are core to keeping your structure in place. Players on the field for the first 60+ will have a feel for the game and someone coming off the bench will have to find their way into the game. That in itself can be costly.

former total · 20-06-2016 2:34pm

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

It must be very disappointing if not completely embarrassing for the 3 backs on the bench, not to be given the chance to help the team.
The try to take the lead came in 75th minute, conversion on 76th minute, and then the 3 sub backs came on.
For me it's disappointing, because I believe we have great potential in our subs, but clearly the coach, who is the closest to the players, doesn't believe in them at all.

Joe never likes changing his half-backs. Go back to the Argentina game, I think Reddan got two minutes and Jackson got zero. Likewise in the Six Nations, Marmion and Madigan got negligible game time. Your half backs are just so central to everything that even bringing in fresh legs is bound to cause disruption elsewhere so I can see where he's coming from. I don't think anyone realised how wrecked Murray was until he wilted under de Allende and by then it was too late.

As for TOH, well, no, he wouldn't have wanted to take any of his starting 11 - 15 off to be replaced by a guy with zero caps and not much time in camp. (Yes, yes, I know that he can't get experience if he's never tried, I know.)

MJohnston · 20-06-2016 2:53pm

Vermeulen injured? http://www.the42.ie/south-africa-injury-vermeulen-2834226-Jun2016/?utm_source=twitter_self

Live by the sword, etc.

LorMal · 20-06-2016 3:12pm

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Just for the record,
Tries came 55, 63, 69, 75, and last penalty came at 80.
3 out of 4 tries were converted.
If we had held out just one of the converted tries we would have won.
If the 3 sub backs had been on at 55-60 minutes we could have seen a difference.
The forward subs did come on roughly in good time.
Perhaps Best and McGrth could have gone off a bit before their eventual exit at 65 mins.
Also perhaps Henderson could have gone off for Reidy before the 70th minute.
With margins so thin, and a few costly errors between Jackson and the backs (crossing when on their 22, and knock on due to miscommunication) perhaps with fresh legs those mistakes could have been avoided and we could have kept possession better towards the end of the match.

I think it is very difficult to call. On the one hand, a few of the players looked in bits (esp Best and Trimble). On the other hand, the disruption caused by the mass substitutions really destroyed our concentration and focus - we looked like a disorganised rabble by the end.
While many are blaming the altitude, any of the post match interviews I have read have completely dismissed this as an issue - and I am inclined to think that it was not the main problem.
On balance, I think we may have been better keeping the same team on until the end (except for Best and Trimble) - the substitutions destroyed our rhythm.
I feel sorry for Joe - these decisions are very difficult.

Bigbok · 20-06-2016 3:12pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Vermeulen injured? http://www.the42.ie/south-africa-injury-vermeulen-2834226-Jun2016/?utm_source=twitter_self

Live by the sword, etc.

Live by the sword???bit like dirty stander then.anyway duene shouldn't be in the squad,bench at best.louw at 8,warren at 6 and Jaco at 7

cormpat · 20-06-2016 3:31pm

Bigbok wrote: »

Live by the sword???bit like dirty stander then.anyway duene shouldn't be in the squad,bench at best.louw at 8,warren at 6 and Jaco at 7

Come on, its laughable that you South Africans are trying to play the innocent lambs when it comes to dirty play!

What about Burger's eye gouge on Luke Fitz? Or nearly any game Bakkies Botha played in?

MJohnston · 20-06-2016 3:36pm

Bigbok wrote: »

Live by the sword???bit like dirty stander then.anyway duene shouldn't be in the squad,bench at best.louw at 8,warren at 6 and Jaco at 7

I didn't say Vermeulen's elbow-leading was particularly dirty (it is arguable), but it's downright stupid. Not surprised at all that he picked up an elbow injury.

Bigbok · 20-06-2016 3:41pm

cormpat wrote: »

Come on, its laughable that you South Africans are trying to play the innocent lambs when it comes to dirty play!

What about Burger's eye gouge on Luke Fitz? Or nearly any game Bakkies Botha played in?

So if u want to bring up stuff from 7yrs ago what about POC kicking a player in the head,BOD stamping on a players chest?but no I guess the Irish are the cleanest players around.

FACECUTTR · 20-06-2016 3:52pm

Bigbok wrote: »

Live by the sword???bit like dirty stander then.anyway duene shouldn't be in the squad,bench at best.louw at 8,warren at 6 and Jaco at 7

Whitely is a fantastic player.

Bigbok · 20-06-2016 3:54pm

FACECUTTR wrote: »

Whitely is a fantastic player.

Been knocking on the door for ages now but unfortunately not getting rewarded for his hard work,same with Jaco and Marx too

Zzippy · 20-06-2016 3:56pm

Bigbok wrote: »

Live by the sword???bit like dirty stander then.anyway duene shouldn't be in the squad,bench at best.louw at 8,warren at 6 and Jaco at 7

cormpat wrote: »

Come on, its laughable that you South Africans are trying to play the innocent lambs when it comes to dirty play!

What about Burger's eye gouge on Luke Fitz? Or nearly any game Bakkies Botha played in?

Bigbok wrote: »

So if u want to bring up stuff from 7yrs ago what about POC kicking a player in the head,BOD stamping on a players chest?but no I guess the Irish are the cleanest players around.

People in glasshouses comes to mind. No more of this rubbish please.

cormpat · 20-06-2016 4:00pm

Bigbok wrote: »

So if u want to bring up stuff from 7yrs ago what about POC kicking a player in the head,BOD stamping on a players chest?but no I guess the Irish are the cleanest players around.

Look, if you want to get into a situation where I list all South African dirty play I'd be writing a book longer than Lord of the Rings. Anyway, I thought all you Boks loved a bit of biff?

Bigbok · 20-06-2016 4:04pm

cormpat wrote: »

Look, if you want to get into a situation where I list all South African dirty play I'd be writing a book longer than Lord of the Rings. Anyway, I thought all you Boks loved a bit of biff?

https://youtu.be/hekw9Q0b_eI

Adbrowne · 20-06-2016 4:11pm

before the thread gets locked, inevitably, what did people think of the ref on saturday, I thought he was very good.

former total · 20-06-2016 4:13pm

Adbrowne wrote: »

before the thread gets locked, inevitably, what did people think of the ref on saturday, I thought he was very good.

I don't even remember who it was.

Therefore, he had a cracking match.

Stheno · 20-06-2016 4:13pm

Adbrowne wrote: »

before the thread gets locked, inevitably, what did people think of the ref on saturday, I thought he was very good.

Me too seemed pretty balanced

Apart from him constantly calling the tmo "mate"

Adbrowne · 20-06-2016 4:17pm

former total wrote: »

I don't even remember who it was.

Therefore, he had a cracking match.

Angus Gardner. He did one of our games in the 6n

Teferi · 20-06-2016 4:33pm

Angus Gardner had a great game. He's had a few good games recently tbh and seems to know a bit about the scrum (which I take as a bonus with rugby refs). Only 31 too, so plenty left in the tank for him.

pickarooney · 20-06-2016 5:27pm

I was very impressed with Gardner and his confident, no bull**** approach. He even admitted a minor error at one stage.

I thought the south African commentators wee very good, knowledgeable and balanced as well, FWIW. I'd never heard of 'changing lanes' in a maul before.

The Rape of Lucretia · 20-06-2016 5:46pm

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

It must be very disappointing if not completely embarrassing for the 3 backs on the bench, not to be given the chance to help the team.

They are all clearly third rate. No right to be given a chance to help the team. They are back up. To be used if those ahead of them are injured.

Billysays no · 20-06-2016 5:56pm

Will be interesting to see how the team changes for the final test. Will Healy or Reddan feature in the match day 23? Will Marmion and Madigan form the initial partnership to allow impact substitutions from Murray and Jackson. Who will form the centre partnership. If you put olding and marshall (which would be a reasonably fresh centre partnership) so do you put toh at fullback and have payne on the bench. Does toner need a break and should he be on the bench.

Looking back at the world cup it struck me that we had the weaker opposition to start and we simply played our best team from the start. So when it came to the crunch games the team was tired. The French game was really attritional which left us really stuffed when we got to the tougher games.

So we didn't learn from that. Hopefully we have learnt this time.

AbusesToilets · 20-06-2016 6:11pm

thomond2006 wrote: »

I had never heard of Ruan Combrinck. I have now.

I would wonder at how effective he will be starting? SA might have their best team on the field come sat, but how much impact will be left for their bench i that's the case?

errlloyd · 20-06-2016 6:37pm

thomond2006 wrote: »

I had never heard of Ruan Combrinck. I have now.

I'm in a South African fans FB page and they've been calling for him from the start. The lads down the pub were very impressed when I was able to identify Combrinck coming on as a potential game changer!

thomond2006 · 20-06-2016 6:48pm

Billysays no wrote: »

Looking back at the world cup it struck me that we had the weaker opposition to start and we simply played our best team from the start.

We played the seconds in the second match vs Romania, so the above isn't correct.

Billysays no · 20-06-2016 7:10pm

thomond2006 wrote: »

We played the seconds in the second match vs Romania, so the above isn't correct.

I really, really said that badly. what I was trying to say is that is we were disadvantaged. We had the easy stuff first. Then we were hitting hard attritional games. And we lost players with no time to recover for the important stages. So thomond you are spot on.

Adbrowne · 20-06-2016 7:15pm

Billysays no wrote: »

I really, really said that badly. what I was trying to say is that is we were disadvantaged. We had the easy stuff first. Then we were hitting hard attritional games. And we lost players with no time to recover for the important stages. So thomond you are spot on.

POC, POM suffered long term injuries. The run of the games had no impact. Sexton might have been out of the argentina game even if he had two weeks recovery time

swiwi_ · 20-06-2016 7:26pm

Teferi wrote: »

Angus Gardner had a great game. He's had a few good games recently tbh and seems to know a bit about the scrum (which I take as a bonus with rugby refs). Only 31 too, so plenty left in the tank for him.

He's a great ref. I expect him to motor up the ranks. Most promising newbie in a while.

Billysays no · 20-06-2016 7:47pm

Adbrowne wrote: »

POC, POM suffered long term injuries. The run of the games had no impact. Sexton might have been out of the argentina game even if he had two weeks recovery time

every game hurts for every player. we just had an unfortunate sequence of games. no more than the u20s, we got a break against Georgia before argentina. this allowed the possibility of making 13 changes to freshen the team.

what we see on the sa tour is an unwillingness to change a team which leaves us a total puzzle for last test. paddy is shagged, conor is shagged, devin is shagged. is marmion so rubbish. he just led Connacht to a pro12 title. I don't rate Madigan but Jackson needs a rest at some stage.

what is the point of 'impact' subs if you believe they have no impact. then they are simply useless .

and I have a real problem with toh, marmion, Madigan, ryan, Gilroy, dillane, bealham, strauss as its always the last minutes. so you simply have no clue if they are useless or not. and pro12 form seems utterly irrelevant.

I am happy for furlong. that's a start. not a surprise. just a start

South Africa v Ireland, Second Test. Match Thread

Comments