Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

2023 RWC Buildup, Squads, Fixtures 'etc'

1163164166168169306

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,293 ✭✭✭Jacovs




  • Site Banned Posts: 7,421 ✭✭✭gameoverdude


    I meant hoping for that result.

    Irelands management and players will be looking to win.

    Although it would be a bit humorous.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,293 ✭✭✭Jacovs


    I wont be hoping for that, and wouldnt find it funny, but I know what you mean, from a non-SA perspective.

    Especially with my Irish wife, and my Irish/SA 7 year old daughter choosing to wear an Irish rugby shirt to school on Bok Friday when they are supposed to be wearing Springbok clothes to school. I'd never hear the end of it.

    And I would find it that much harder to support Ireland the rest of the way if they colluded to knock SA out on purpose.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Bizarre segue about Scotland game; Ireland will aim to win and strangle the Scots outright. I don't doubt they'll push us, perhaps even more than the Boks did... but I don't anticipate this game being a problem, ultimately.

    As to the broader worry for a 24 team competition: worth thinking on that in that expanded tournament, Scotland would be also playing for qualification into the Round of 16 as one of the best 3rd placed teams. IE, more Tier 1 nation match-ups.

    You can be sure all those perennial 3rd place finishers will vote for the expanded tournament for their own continued participation in an otherwise abbreviated WC



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,836 ✭✭✭Ben Bailey




  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 7,421 ✭✭✭gameoverdude


    Your daughter sounds cool! Piss daddy off.

    Be no collusion with this Irish team. We want to trounce Scotland regardless od qf opponents.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,007 ✭✭✭TheRona


    Ah na, NZ wouldn't care who they meet in the quarter. It would just be funny to see SA get kicked out after all their misguided confidence and ridiculous 'innovations' and mind games.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,293 ✭✭✭Jacovs


    Mapimpi out of the world cup with a facial fracture. Which the referee didnt deem to meet the yellow card threshold. But he had to be talked down from giving Etzebeth a yellow.

    Wonder if they will bring Am over. We have plenty of cover at centre and wings, so may not be necessary.



  • Site Banned Posts: 7,421 ✭✭✭gameoverdude


    Some weird decisions in that match.

    But I don't think severity of injury should be included in decisions. That's an impossible task.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 42,675 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    That would be a great idea. I'm surprised they haven't thought about it.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 32,765 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    It's not remotely agreed. Two of their penalty attempts came off the back of prior missed kicks and their try came from the missed kick off the crossbar. Just adding up their missed points is both ridiculously reductive but also just plain wrong.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 42,675 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Hang on, so you are saying that if they scored two of those missed penalties that Ireland would still have won?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    It's an irrelevant question because if those kicks were made, it changed the shape of the game - we can't know how Ireland would have responded. We might still have won given that our gameplan would/might have changed to reflect the points scored by SA. It's all "if my granny had wheels" territory cos it doesn't say anything except apply arbitrary logic without applying context to follow suit.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 32,765 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Well they wouldn't have scored their try so yeah.

    It's obviously a stupid argument either way. Outside of a last minute kick to win it's always a stupid argument.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 32,765 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Georgia beat Wales the last time they played a year ago. I suspect they are unlikely to repeat, but it's not a "foregone conclusion".



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Was that the one where the defender was basically on his knees and Mapimpi charged headlong into him? If so, it was the first sensible decision I've seen. No shade on Mapimpi, everyone is encouraged to carry like that, but it's about time we stopped expecting players to magically dematerialise out of the way.

    Etzebeth only being a penalty was the second sensible decision. Absolutely nothing in that, even if you want to forensically examine the contact area and height off the ground.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,293 ✭✭✭Jacovs


    Wont argue with that, I think both correct too. Just the referee didnt initially.

    We seem to get a lot more replays where foul play is suspected, compared to replays when tries are scored. You just hear the TMO and referee talking in the background while the player lines up for the conversion.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 423 ✭✭legend99


    Traditionally rugby has this in a lot of competitions - Bowl, Shield, Plate on top of the main Cup. Even extends to the 7s series where all teams continue to play out for something.

    If you were doing, I think all teams should play on. If you had 5 team groups as now, leave 1/2 into main cup quarters; 3/4 into the Shield quarters; put fifth place in Bowl semis.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 13,942 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    I'm surprised that this hasn't happened already. Could sell so much more advertising and tickets. No brainer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    IIRC the Rugby Europe Championship has play offs as well, all the way down to 7th Vs 8th (Belgium v Poland, for anyone curious lol); the World Cup is a bit of an outlier structurally but then maybe it just comes down to simple cost. Play offs and "shield" competitions means more outlay to to spend on host stadia, facilities, staff, etc etc.

    Honestly the more I've thought about it, the more the 24 team expansion will be the best of both worlds here. Fewer lopsided games in the pools and more meaningful clashes, while giving the traditional 3rd placed teams something proper to play for - a place in the knockout stages. I don't think it'll be the disaster some claim.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 423 ✭✭legend99


    Assume cost must be part of it? How much would hosting all those extra nights cost versus how much would it generate?

    Which raises the question in general - who pays for the costs of participating teams in general?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 13,942 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Hopefully the chancers running the CC will take more of the benefits of group structures like that



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79,468 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Mapimpi gone and the Pollard/Libbock conundrum must be hugely upsetting SA's prep and confidence.

    Have to be the top team in worst shape going into the last weekend of the pools.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 13,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    They've played their 4 pool games. They've just sit back and see what happens this weekend.

    Am has been added to the squad to replace Mapimpi.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,178 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Who is buying these tickets though, especially at literally a few days notice? They have the main draw years in advance supposedly because such a long lead time is needed for sales.

    So under a plate/shield competition we find out next Sunday that fixtures like Tonga v Uruguay, Chile v Portugal and Scotland v Japan are happening a week later. How many fans are going to purchase tickets for these games and travel to France (or Australia in 4 years)? How many fans already in France are going to stay on? How many advance sales could have been made to locals when the teams were unknown (Group A 4th v Group B 4th is a pretty tough advance sell).

    And advertising/broadcast revenue. How much are these games actually worth to advertisers/broadcasters? Very little imo - if you are paying X to be a sponsor or broadcaster of the main event, then I don't believe you'd pay any extra money. You might accept the games as a free content filler, but paying money for them? I see it as a bit like the soccer EPL decision to televise every game during Covid - they quickly found out that Picks 8/9/10 had no commercial value and broadcasters weren't willing to pay so they became freebies to Sky/BT/Amazon.

    And finally the players - depending on how long pre-camp was they have been away for around 7 weeks. Is there really much enthusiasm to hang around for another 2 weeks to participate in a Shield/Plate? Or just get the hell home?

    So whilst I can see the merit of the idea in a sporting sense, I don't think it stacks up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 423 ✭✭legend99


    Yes. Doing it in the 7s model, when it's all done in a weekend, when everyone is there anyway, is one thing, but everything you've raised here on the practicalities of the 15s game and it going on for weeks more for those teams, is very valid.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 42,675 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    It's not an irrelevant question. And Insulting a poster for saying it is highly disrespectful.

    Fact of the matter is that Ireland scored 7 points in the first half, that's 3.5 points per quarter, We scored 10 points by the end of three quarters, that's 3.3 points per quarter. At the end of the game we had score 13 points, that's 3.33 points per quarter. So our points scoring average remained almost exactly the same whether in front of behind.

    To suggest that it's highly likely things would have changed if South Africa had scored two penalties isn't supported by facts or math. We were behind and our points scoring average never changed. There is no basis for suggesting that we could have changed our scoring average based on the performance of the other team.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 42,675 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    I'd like the sevens set up.

    You are likely to have Scotland and Australia in a shield which doesn't give much chance to the rest.



  • Posts: 12,836 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If a team kick a successful penalty, we kick off to them and they start off in their 22. If they miss one, they're running the ball back from a goal line drop out. That alone is a massive difference. The idea that:

    a) They left 11 points out there - not sure I've ever seen teams include multiple kicks from their own half as 'missed points' before

    b) If they make a couple of kicks they win the game

    Both are a bit naff to me. No point talking ifs or buts when we pissed away 4 or 5 huge opportunities from line outs. We can fix that before anyone in the South African squad can start nailing 55m penalties. I include Pollard in that who's reputation seems to improve the more hes out injured



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 32,765 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    It's completely irrelevant.

    If someone waves a magic wand and the game was the same except we were 4 points down when Crowley kicked the penalty we obviously wouldn't have kicked it.



Advertisement
Advertisement