Rugby Union 21/22/23 Discussion | RWC time!

Status
Not open for further replies.
BD said:
I listened to that as well, and aside from me cringing seemingly every time Shane Horgan talked (did I imagine it, or did he call Sexton 'Sexto' at one point?), I found it relatively interesting. But half way through I couldn't help but thinking that if the Irish fella wasn't held up by Barrett, Ireland would've won and all of what they said would be flipped on its head, and they'd be saying how great Ireland were, NZ had problems, etc. I know it's common in sports to base the analysis on the outcome, but here it seemed even more extreme.

From a very casual viewer, it looked to me as though both teams played well, while making a few mistakes, and ultimately it came down to one 30 second period at the end of the game.
Click to expand...

To be fair to big Shane, he gets bonus points from me for mentioning Chekhov’s Gun!

Yeah, it does feel like there’s an element of being overly negative based on the result. But I was definitely thinking points 1 to 5 during the game as well. It was weird. NZ played so well and we were so far below our best and yet, and yet…

Part of me wonders if we’re all massively overrating NZ and they’re going to get destroyed in the final? Time will tell.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Still fecking ruminating on our loss. I've been listening to the Ireland-NZ post mortem on a podcast I listen to (second captains) who have a bunch of pundits who are very knowledgeable about rugby (unlike me!) They have me a bit confused though.

The consensus is that:
1. A lot of NZ players put in 9/10 or 10/10 performances. Only Aki managed that for Ireland
2. NZ were completely dominant at the breakdown
3. NZ set pieces were better than Ireland
4. NZ preplanned attack plays were better than Ireland
5. NZ defence was better than Ireland's
6. NZ coaching on the day (subs. tactical adjustments etc) was better than Ireland

I completely agree with points 1-5 and am happy to take their word for 6 (that stuff is over my head)

What melts my head is how all of the above can be true and the game was still so close? I can't think of any close shaves at the Ireland try line but the held up maul and the cross kick which just evaded Sheehan's hand were two moments which could have won Ireland the game.

Most of the stats have Ireland as the dominant team too.



Can anyone make all of this make sense? How did Ireland manage to play so badly - and New Zealand play so well - without New Zealand winning comfortably?
Click to expand...
I can understand where 6 is coming from, sexton should of been subbed for Crowley, he's been subbed in all our wins over them, fresh legs and fresh ideas, the game was set for a chip over there defense line, but it looked like we were sending him out on his shield.
 
christy87 said:
I can understand where 6 is coming from, sexton should of been subbed for Crowley, he's been subbed in all our wins over them, fresh legs and fresh ideas, the game was set for a chip over there defense line, but it looked like we were sending him out on his shield.
Click to expand...

Yeah, looked like that. And I’m ok with that tbh. One of those decisions where Farrell went with heart over head.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Yeah, looked like that. And I’m ok with that tbh. One of those decisions where Farrell went with heart over head.
Click to expand...
For me there is no place for sentiment in this its knock out rugby in a world cup and highly attritional you have to use everyone, where we there to win it or send Johnny off, also taking earls, Conan to the cup cost us the fitness of the starters, we were carrying to many players based on emotion Conan could of been called up once fit.
 
In other news the URC changed the qualifications format for the champions cup, interested of the winners of the individual nations shield getting a slot it's, the top 8 from now on.
 
christy87 said:
For me there is no place for sentiment in this its knock out rugby in a world cup and highly attritional you have to use everyone, where we there to win it or send Johnny off, also taking earls, Conan to the cup cost us the fitness of the starters, we were carrying to many players based on emotion Conan could of been called up once fit.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with some of that. Getting back on topic, though, seeing as you think points 1-6 were all true, why was it such a close game?!
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I would disagree with some of that. Getting back on topic, though, seeing as you think points 1-6 were all true, why was it such a close game?!
Click to expand...
I didn't say 1 to 5 were all true I said 6 was and that's what cost us in my books, you have to use the entire squad and your brain in this game, just look at SA they brought on everyone with 20 mins to go, the tough calls are tough for a reason and you can't let your heart over rule your head.
My reasoning for taking Johnny off was simple, he has never been an out of hand kicker, jack is and you can't expect the unexpected, the chips over the top ruled the elite games over the weekend with the high defences.
 
christy87 said:
I didn't say 1 to 5 were all true I said 6 was and that's what cost us in my books, you have to use the entire squad and your brain in this game, just look at SA they brought on everyone with 20 mins to go, the tough calls are tough for a reason and you can't let your heart over rule your head.
My reasoning for taking Johnny off was simple, he has never been an out of hand kicker, jack is and you can't expect the unexpected, the chips over the top ruled the elite games over the weekend with the high defences.
Click to expand...

So you disagree with 1 through 5?

I feel like you're avoiding my question. I'm wondering why NZ could have been better than us in every aspect of the game but could still easily have lost?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
So you disagree with 1 through 5?

I feel like you're avoiding my question. I'm wondering why NZ could have been better than us in every aspect of the game but could still easily have lost?
Click to expand...
At this level the differences are minute, you could say they played the ref better and thus were better in set pieces, there defence was better, ball handling they were better, tactically better, made better use of there bench and just slightly won, all we had to do was be better in 1 or 2 of those situations and we'd of won and the use of our bench was a big one.
I found it strange taking VDF off when Doris wasn't on it, sexton not being subbed, when for club and country you could probably count in 1 hand how many times he wasn't subbed in the last 2 years.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Still fecking ruminating on our loss. I've been listening to the Ireland-NZ post mortem on a podcast I listen to (second captains) who have a bunch of pundits who are very knowledgeable about rugby (unlike me!) They have me a bit confused though.

The consensus is that:
1. A lot of NZ players put in 9/10 or 10/10 performances. Only Aki managed that for Ireland
2. NZ were completely dominant at the breakdown
3. NZ set pieces were better than Ireland
4. NZ preplanned attack plays were better than Ireland
5. NZ defence was better than Ireland's
6. NZ coaching on the day (subs. tactical adjustments etc) was better than Ireland

I completely agree with points 1-5 and am happy to take their word for 6 (that stuff is over my head)

What melts my head is how all of the above can be true and the game was still so close? I can't think of any close shaves at the Ireland try line but the held up maul and the cross kick which just evaded Sheehan's hand were two moments which could have won Ireland the game.

Most of the stats have Ireland as the dominant team too.



Can anyone make all of this make sense? How did Ireland manage to play so badly - and New Zealand play so well - without New Zealand winning comfortably?
Click to expand...

New Zealand aren't all that so, while if we were at 100% we would have beaten them, we still could have pulled it out of the bag at 80/90%?
 
Last edited:
I have a gut feeling England will cause headaches for South Africa. I just don't think it's a foregone conclusion.
 
Eddie Jones said "mate" 49 times during his 24 minute press conference yesterday. Sadly he didn't announce his departure. His denials about taking the Japan job were far from convincing.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Still fecking ruminating on our loss. I've been listening to the Ireland-NZ post mortem on a podcast I listen to (second captains) who have a bunch of pundits who are very knowledgeable about rugby (unlike me!) They have me a bit confused though.

The consensus is that:
1. A lot of NZ players put in 9/10 or 10/10 performances. Only Aki managed that for Ireland
2. NZ were completely dominant at the breakdown
3. NZ set pieces were better than Ireland
4. NZ preplanned attack plays were better than Ireland
5. NZ defence was better than Ireland's
6. NZ coaching on the day (subs. tactical adjustments etc) was better than Ireland

I completely agree with points 1-5 and am happy to take their word for 6 (that stuff is over my head)

What melts my head is how all of the above can be true and the game was still so close? I can't think of any close shaves at the Ireland try line but the held up maul and the cross kick which just evaded Sheehan's hand were two moments which could have won Ireland the game.

Most of the stats have Ireland as the dominant team too.



Can anyone make all of this make sense? How did Ireland manage to play so badly - and New Zealand play so well - without New Zealand winning comfortably?
Click to expand...
No mentioning of turning down 3 (I think) easy penalties to go for a line out? From memory they lost 2 line outs and had the held up try from the third.

On top of the missed easy pen as well.
 
arnie_ni said:
No mentioning of turning down 3 (I think) easy penalties to go for a line out? From memory they lost 2 line outs and had the held up try from the third.

On top of the missed easy pen as well.
Click to expand...

Was the penalty try after a maul from one of those line-outs? Can’t remember. Although I do know we didn’t lose any lineouts in the second half. Anyway. Don’t think we kicked penalties to touch more frequently than we usually would. And the converted try at the end of the first half definitely came after turning down 3 points.

That’s all by the by though. The post you’re replying to is trying to make sense of what went right for us, not what went wrong. Because NZ played out of their skins and we still ran them incredibly close. Which doesn’t make sense if you accept we were as poor as most pundits seem to think we were.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Was the penalty try after a maul from one of those line-outs? Can’t remember. Although I do know we didn’t lose any lineouts in the second half. Anyway. Don’t think we kicked penalties to touch more frequently than we usually would. And the converted try at the end of the first half definitely came after turning down 3 points.

That’s all by the by though. The post you’re replying to is trying to make sense of what went right for us, not what went wrong. Because NZ played out of their skins and we still ran them incredibly close. Which doesn’t make sense if you accept we were as poor as most pundits seem to think we were.
Click to expand...
We were definitely good, I just came away thinking we left a couple of points behind in the first half going for the corner and not the posts. If a game comes down to that you've generally done well I think.

If was a very evenly fought match and you couldn't look at either team and say they deserved to lose it.

Ireland played well and on another day they score a few more tries and win "comfortably."

Id agree with you and not the pundits.
 
arnie_ni said:
We were definitely good, I just came away thinking we left a couple of points behind in the first half going for the corner and not the posts. If a game comes down to that you've generally done well I think.

If was a very evenly fought match and you couldn't look at either team and say they deserved to lose it.

Ireland played well and on another day they score a few more tries and win "comfortably."

Id agree with you and not the pundits.
Click to expand...

Weirdly, I don't fully disagree with the pundits. I'd say we played at about a 6 or 7 out of 10. Our backs probably played as well as they usually do but our pack was well below their best. Very rare to see all 8 members of the Irish pack have so little impact in open play. I think NZ played at 9 or 10 out of 10. Very close to their best anyway. Which makes me wonder if they're not actually that good and will be found out in the final. Which would be a bit of a kick in the balls, with hindsight.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Weirdly, I don't fully disagree with the pundits. I'd say we played at about a 6 or 7 out of 10. Our backs probably played as well as they usually do but our pack was well below their best. Very rare to see all 8 members of the Irish pack have so little impact in open play. I think NZ played at 9 or 10 out of 10. Very close to their best anyway. Which makes me wonder if they're not actually that good and will be found out in the final. Which would be a bit of a kick in the balls, with hindsight.
Click to expand...
I suppose I agree with that especially the pack. Sam Cane for example didn't win man of the match and he was fantastic.
 
Michael Cheika and Joe Schmidt (sorry Ian Foster) have named their sides for the 1st semi final.

Argentina (15-1)

Juan Cruz Mallia; Emiliano Boffelli, Lucio Cinti, Santiago Chocobares, Mateo Carreras; Santiago Carreras, Gonzalo Bertranou; Facundo Isa, Marcos Kremer, Juan Martin Gonzalez; Tomas Lavanini, Guido Petti; Francisco Gomez Kodela, Julian Montoya (capt), Thomas Gallo

Replacements: Agustin Creevy, Joel Sclavi, Eduardo Bello, Matias Alemanno, Rodrigo Bruni, Lautaro Bazan Velez, Nicolas Sanchez, Matias Moroni

New Zealand (15-1)

Beauden Barrett; Will Jordan, Rieko Ioane, Jordie Barrett, Mark Tele'a; Richie Mo'unga, Aaron Smith; Ardie Savea, Sam Cane (capt), Shannon Frizell; Scott Barrett, Samuel Whitelock; Tyrel Lomax, Codie Taylor, Ethan de Groot

Replacements: Samisoni Taukei’aho, Tamaiti Williams, Fletcher Newell, Brodie Retallick, Dalton Papali'i, Finlay Christie, Damian McKenzie, Anton Lienert-Brown
 
Last edited:
Snowjoe said:
It would actually be hilarious, unfortunately we are gonna get spanked Saturday so we won’t have to worry about it
Click to expand...

Of the 4 countries playing this weekend, England has the best record in World Cup semi finals, winning 4 from 5. For what it's worth, South Africa are 3 from 5, New Zealand 4 from 8 and Argentina 0 from 2 in World Cup semi finals.
 
Last edited:
I'm starting to stress about the semi tomorrow. Hopefully we can get a decent lead in the first half. My main concern is England will go for posts at every opportunity, and those 3 points can tick over to a solid 10-12 point lead in no time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.