Has the high number of replacements skewed the game?

[didds]

X

I dont see why everyone is so worked up about it

exactly.

 

[Stu10]

X

I dont see why everyone is so worked up about it

Because no other teams can match or counter SA having almost 2 complete world class packs... if you dominate up front for the full 80 minutes, you typically win the game.

 

[crossref]

Because no other teams can match or counter SA having almost 2 complete world class packs... if you dominate up front for the full 80 minutes, you typically win the game.

Shrug, so WR could reduce the number of replacements , but meanwhile can't get too excited about how SA use their eight.
Every other team could do the same if they wanted

 

[Stu10]

Shrug, so WR could reduce the number of replacements , but meanwhile can't get too excited about how SA use their eight.
Every other team could do the same if they wanted

I think the ask from other teams is to make a more even split of forwards and backs compulsory, not to reduce the total number.

You are right that other teams could do the same, but no other team has 2 full packs of starting XV calibre, so other teams can't compete by copying.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but this is my understanding of the situation. Arguably, SA are winning, other teams feel helpless and are crying to mum, but I can't see WR doing anything about it because it falls within current laws and comes with pros/cons.

 

[Harry]

Maybe one day we''ll have the joy of watching a South African prop on the wing.

 

[crossref]

Maybe one day we''ll have the joy of watching a South African prop on the win

Hopefully

 

[didds]

Because no other teams can match or counter SA having almost 2 complete world class packs... if you dominate up front for the full 80 minutes, you typically win the game.

shrug.
if another team had a 7/1 split in backs cos they can field two world class backlines, and are content they can win sufficient ball to utilise their super fizzy swervy skills... so what ?

them's the breaks.

 

[didds]

meanwhile...
7 forwards on the bench...
three of those are used up anyway as a LH, TH and hopopker replacement. Cos thats the way the game is since Azam at Gloucester announced off the bench he couldnt play whichever poisition he was coming on for and the scrums went uncontested (which ISTR somewhat benfitted Glaws at that time in that game... ?)

that leaves 4 forwards to cover

open side
blind side
#8.

there ya go. three more specialist positions

and 2nd row.

Job done.

 

[Stu10]

meanwhile...
7 forwards on the bench...
three of those are used up anyway as a LH, TH and hopopker replacement. Cos thats the way the game is since Azam at Gloucester announced off the bench he couldnt play whichever poisition he was coming on for and the scrums went uncontested (which ISTR somewhat benfitted Glaws at that time in that game... ?)

that leaves 4 forwards to cover

open side
blind side
#8.

there ya go. three more specialist positions

and 2nd row.

Job done.

Good job, Rassie

Typically one of your 2nd row can also cover blind side.

 

[crossref]

Meanwhile England have two fly halves on the pitch AND a spare fly half on the bench.
Of course we do
Can never have too many fly half, right?

 

[Decorily]

Can never have too many fly half, right?

Maybe so......but even one scrum half is generally one too many!!!

 

[SimonSmith]

Meanwhile England have two fly halves on the pitch AND a spare fly half on the bench.
Of course we do
Can never have too many fly half, right?

Can you send that memo to Eddie Jones?

 

[shebeen]

I think the ask from other teams is to make a more even split of forwards and backs compulsory, not to reduce the total number.

You are right that other teams could do the same, but no other team has 2 full packs of starting XV calibre, so other teams can't compete by copying.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but this is my understanding of the situation. Arguably, SA are winning, other teams feel helpless and are crying to mum, but I can't see WR doing anything about it because it falls within current laws and comes with pros/cons.

Agreed. 6-2 is already a big risk, 7-1 is asking for trouble. It only makes sense if you have enough power tight forwards who each play 40-50mins (imagine what that does for their long term tournament fatigue hardly ever playing 70-80mins?). Also you need a lot of versatility in the backline, which means you don't always have your best players on the park if you had specialists.



Nienaber said it is a calculated risk, and it will backfire sooner or later. One thing it has done is no one is talking about Rassie's Lions video or his tweet from the IREvRSA 2022 game less than a year ago that got him banned

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1589224608208588800

 

[didds]

Good job, Rassie

Typically one of your 2nd row can also cover blind side.

yes - typcially he can.
Until somebody claims they are not suitably trained and experienced to feel safe playing there. (yes I know that not a laws requirement for back 5. But Id suggest in more modern approaches to employment forcing somebody to play somewhere they claim they feel unsafe playing is a slippery slope etc ;-) )

 

[didds]

Agreed. 6-2 is already a big risk, 7-1 is asking for trouble. It only makes sense if you have enough power tight forwards who each play 40-50mins (imagine what that does for their long term tournament fatigue hardly ever playing 70-80mins?). Also you need a lot of versatility in the backline, which means you don't always have your best players on the park if you had specialists.

Or you just play backs for defensive qualities and stick the ball up your jumper.

 

[Stu10]

Agreed. 6-2 is already a big risk, 7-1 is asking for trouble. It only makes sense if you have enough power tight forwards who each play 40-50mins (imagine what that does for their long term tournament fatigue hardly ever playing 70-80mins?). Also you need a lot of versatility in the backline, which means you don't always have your best players on the park if you had specialists.

This is exactly the SA way at present... they do have enough power tight forwards for almost a full change at 40-50 minutes. I can't work out if you think this is good or bad for fatigue? A lack of full match fitness should the need arise to play a full game (e.g. early replacement due to injury), or low fatigue due to reduced game time.

There is certainly a risk having only 1 back reserve... they have a scrum half on the bench this weekend, Faf can also play 10, Willemse can move around and also cover 10... there is enough flexibility when you also have the option of keeping it in the forwards, who will most likely be dominating for the full 80 minutes.

 

[Volun-selected]

I just keep remembering the scene in Life of Brian when the skinny, unarmored man takes one look at the gladiator he’s been sent in to fight … and promptly turns and runs with the gladiator chasing after him until said gladiator keels over with a heart attack.

Maybe the Irish plan will be “run them ‘til they puke, and then run faster”?

 

[Stu10]

I just keep remembering the scene in Life of Brian when the skinny, unarmored man takes one look at the gladiator he’s been sent in to fight … and promptly turns and runs with the gladiator chasing after him until said gladiator keels over with a heart attack.

Maybe the Irish plan will be “run them ‘til they puke, and then run faster”?

I definitely think Ireland will be aiming to keep the pace of the game as fast as they can.

 

[SimonSmith]

I definitely think Ireland will be aiming to keep the pace of the game as fast as they can.

I can foresee a lot of minor niggling injuries that will demand the trainer come to examine the South African hurt by those nasty, nasty Irish players.

 

[Stu10]

I can foresee a lot of minor niggling injuries that will demand the trainer come to examine the South African hurt by those nasty, nasty Irish players.

That shouldn't take long though, because their physio is constantly floating in the 5m channel or in goal