World cup 2023

I do not know if it's been discussed on here yet, but looking at the way the groups and the draw has been made, it looks as though New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland and France are all on the same side of the draw, so two of those nations will not be getting into the semi finals.

Am I looking at this correctly ? Two of the top four nations could be out at the quarter final stage.

This leaves a massive opportunity for one of England, Australia, Wales even Argentina to get to the final, then it's a one off chance of a lifetime for the final, and as we have seen recently, anyone can beat anyone on any given day.

This will be a very interesting world cup methinks.

Yeah the seeding is done like three years before the World Cup which is just stupid really. Wales, England, SA and NZ were top seeds which means they won’t all meet in the quarters.

Depending on pool results SA and Ireland (in the same pool) will meet NZ and France) in the same pool. Obviously depending on the results it is an either or.

EJ must be rubbing his hands in anticipation and following the series win in Australia now has the best part of two teams to select from for his RWC squad.
Lest we forget in 2019 England got France and Argentina in their pool and then Oz, NZ and then SA in the final - it was always a long shot to win all those in succession.
Next time round, the draw to the final looks far less fraught, despite every team being one accidental head clash away from a red card and subsequent disappointment.

It's a great draw for England, though things can change in a lot in a year. The timing of the draw has been criticised before but on the plus side it gives fans the chance to plan a little easier. If I was a betting man I'd have a dabble on France vs England in the final; and we have a little history of playing the hosts at that stage.


Walking that back, re looked at the fixtures and France and England will finish top so will meet in the semis.

France V Wales final I reckon.

Good to see the 8am drinking tradition lives long in Wales outside of the 6N

BamBam wrote:Good to see the 8am drinking tradition lives long in Wales outside of the 6N

It's a cup game so anything can happen. England followed by France or New Zealand though, tough.

The probable QFs look like a NH/SH split:

Australia-Argentina
South Africa-New Zealand
England-Wales
France-Ireland

With the SFs being:

Australia-South Africa
England-France

So it doesn't look that uneven to me. Of course if NZ top their group, not France, then those two get swapped around in the draw and it's a heavyweight France-South Africa QF instead of a likely F.

If South Africa play New Zealand in a quarter final I think New Zealand will win.

France also imploding like 2007 (losing first game) is not beyond the realms of possibility. I think they have made a mistake for France scheduling that game then.

Fra v SA and Irl v NZ would be cracking quarterfinals.

I think Ireland should play a B team against SA in the group stage. SA will just target Sexton and try to smash everyone and our A team will just end up crocked for the quarters again.

Let the A team instead focus on beating Scotland (hard enough ask) and winning the other group games and make sure we have a full squad for the quarters and roll the dice with whoever we have. Play the same B team v SA in November so they are ready for the test.

Are the fixtures for the RWC set yet?

The question is who would rather play who.

Will SA prefer to play NZ or France? They know NZ better, would Ireland prefer to play NZ or Franve, they know both team well, and currently have the wood over NZ.

But who would NZ prefer? I suspect SA, and France?

Whichever deciding match is played last in these two pools would be interesting.

Old Man wrote:Are the fixtures for the RWC set yet?

The question is who would rather play who.

Will SA prefer to play NZ or France? They know NZ better, would Ireland prefer to play NZ or Franve, they know both team well, and currently have the wood over NZ.

But who would NZ prefer? I suspect SA, and France?

Whichever deciding match is played last in these two pools would be interesting.

Yes they are. Ireland play SA in the second last group game and Scotland in the last game. (Going to both games)

Ireland will prefer to play NZ but I think they would prefer to play either France or NZ with a fully fit first 15 than NZ missing Sexton and/or other key players.

Duty281 wrote:The probable QFs look like a NH/SH split:

Australia-Argentina
South Africa-New Zealand
England-Wales
France-Ireland

With the SFs being:

Australia-South Africa
England-France

So it doesn't look that uneven to me. Of course if NZ top their group, not France, then those two get swapped around in the draw and it's a heavyweight France-South Africa QF instead of a likely F.

remind me, what happened last time England played Wales at a world cup ?

LordDowlais wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The probable QFs look like a NH/SH split:

Australia-Argentina
South Africa-New Zealand
England-Wales
France-Ireland

With the SFs being:

Australia-South Africa
England-France

So it doesn't look that uneven to me. Of course if NZ top their group, not France, then those two get swapped around in the draw and it's a heavyweight France-South Africa QF instead of a likely F.

remind me, what happened last time England played Wales at a world cup ?

Wales won by 3 points.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:Are the fixtures for the RWC set yet?

The question is who would rather play who.

Will SA prefer to play NZ or France? They know NZ better, would Ireland prefer to play NZ or Franve, they know both team well, and currently have the wood over NZ.

But who would NZ prefer? I suspect SA, and France?

Whichever deciding match is played last in these two pools would be interesting.

Yes they are. Ireland play SA in the second last group game and Scotland in the last game. (Going to both games)

Ireland will prefer to play NZ but I think they would prefer to play either France or NZ with a fully fit first 15 than NZ missing Sexton and/or other key players.

The comment above on preference to play a second string (or at least rest key players)...does it not worry you that by, at least to an extent, writing off the SA places a whole lot of pressure on that Scotland game?

It does of course I just think its less a risk than going into an quarter final with lots of missing players as that is always our downfall.

The Scotland game is in many ways the key match as it almost (not quite) guarantees you make it to the quarters.

I also wouldnt describe the tactic as writing off the SA game, we could still put a good second string team and while it makes the odds of winning quite small they would still be playing to win. Ireland have won against SA without Sexton before and other keys players and even did it once in SA. However, you would adopting the plan knowing you would likely lose alright.

Nienaber's game plan has become static. No game for the Boks are easy.

His philsophy is fraught with danger. He wants to tire out teams with physicality, his plan is simple, the tight five must put 100% into their efforts, it isn't about whether they make mistakes, it is all about how many engagements can the tight five put in 40-45 minutes, hit as many rucks, tackles in as you can, soften the opposition, stay in the game by winning scrum penalties, kicking for the corner and try to maul a try or two, whilst kicking the kickable penalties.

He uses data that suggests up and under/box kicks into the red zone creates more pressure on opposition teams and can result in scoring opportunities.

Then his methodology suggests when his bomb squad comes on early in the second half he can dominate possession and territory and score more points than the opposition.

The second half scores of the Springboks over the past 18 months confirm that.

However.

This means the opposition is always in the game, regardless who they are. The close results over the past 18 months bear witness to that fact when you look at how many games there were that ended within a score, and that leaves the result up to a penalty going the wrong way.

Boks lost against the Lions, the Wallabies, the All Blacks, Wales and England in last minute penalties during the last 18 months.

Unless the Boks start expanding their game plan to go for a more expansive attack plan they might well lose matches against Scotland and Ireland in the pool stages.

At this point I have zero confidence in his game plan.

The next few weeks will be crucial in defining where the Boks are at. They host NZ twice, and NZ is going to throw everything at them, a ten minute burst in either test will end up a losing match for us. Last year in test one in Australia we lost in the last minute outscoring them three tries to nil.

The second test we were completely outplayed in OZ.

Nienaber has no alternate game plan if the opposition wins the aerial battles, win the breakdown and don't fade at the set piece.

I know it goes against what lots of people will believe about rugby and being match fit and being hardened and so on but its exactly for the reasons you give around SA's primary tactic of tiring teams out physically that I think its a big risk for Ireland to play their best team against SA.

The goal isnt to win the group for us it is to win a quarter and then all bets are off. Its a hard enough draw so if you can dodge some bullets along the way every little helps in my view.

Im guessing this is not what they will do though.

Also SA's tactics arent really sustainable for most teams except maybe SA.

I agree that Nienaber's strategy is fraught with risk against teams that can go the distance against a physically dominant side; in a one off game they are vulnerable to most of the top teams. The danger for the likes of Ireland, Scotland or Wales in trying to match them in a tournament context - and especially in the pool stages - is the cost further down the tournament. Winning the pool game at the expense of a bad injury to a key player is likely to be a very pyrrhic victory.

Meanwhile, Eddie is going in the diametrically opposite direction with England.

He's - ostensibly - looking to move away from kicking and towards an attack focused game in which England hang onto the ball for longer periods and try to set up phases with multiple attacking options.

That's not fully operational at the moment - personnel are in flux, the combinations are inexperienced and we only see it come off intermittently. There's also a fair amount of fairly unambitious kicking. But if it builds to be ready for the RWC, it's a much harder strategy to counter.

Relative to resting players and putting out a second team, in a way taking a loss in hopes of being stronger and not being upset later, I've posted this before, but to me more relevant in a RWC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5-iJUuPWis

You can put out a B team and still play to win. Also your video is clearly conventional wisdom but its only conventional wisdom until someone brave enough comes along that demonstrates it might not always be what works best for you.

Sometimes the obvious answer isn't the right answer. I like the bullet hole misconception anecdote as one way of demonstrating this.

https://www.dgsiegel.net/talks/the-bullet-hole-misconception

Mate, I don't think that's a great analogy.  Great speech, but I don't think it applies here.  

But to your point, everyone plays to win.  Firsts, seconds, etc..  In a RWC the B side will play to win, but a weaker side against the Boks, or Kiwis, or Ireland, or France, or (hopefully) England, etc., will have a much less chance of earning a W than playing the B side against the USA, for example.  But that leaves zero room for any upsets.  Maybe it's my army background, but I don't like situations where I leave myself no room for error.    

So, I wouldn't refer to my point as 'conventional wisdom'.  To me, in an unforgiving, nut-cutting comp like the RWC, winning isn't everything, it's the only thing (Vince Lombardi).  Cut everyone's balls off, and you can't lose.
[author's note:  I am medically trained to exactly that, but in this context, I am entirely, or mostly, maybe marginally colloquial]

Old Man wrote:Nienaber's game plan has become static. No game for the Boks are easy.

His philsophy is fraught with danger. He wants to tire out teams with physicality, his plan is simple, the tight five must put 100% into their efforts, it isn't about whether they make mistakes, it is all about how many engagements can the tight five put in 40-45 minutes, hit as many rucks, tackles in as you can, soften the opposition, stay in the game by winning scrum penalties, kicking for the corner and try to maul a try or two, whilst kicking the kickable penalties.

He uses data that suggests up and under/box kicks into the red zone creates more pressure on opposition teams and can result in scoring opportunities.

Then his methodology suggests when his bomb squad comes on early in the second half he can dominate possession and territory and score more points than the opposition.

The second half scores of the Springboks over the past 18 months confirm that.

However.

This means the opposition is always in the game, regardless who they are. The close results over the past 18 months bear witness to that fact when you look at how many games there were that ended within a score, and that leaves the result up to a penalty going the wrong way.

Boks lost against the Lions, the Wallabies, the All Blacks, Wales and England in last minute penalties during the last 18 months.

Unless the Boks start expanding their game plan to go for a more expansive attack plan they might well lose matches against Scotland and Ireland in the pool stages.

At this point I have zero confidence in his game plan.

The next few weeks will be crucial in defining where the Boks are at. They host NZ twice, and NZ is going to throw everything at them, a ten minute burst in either test will end up a losing match for us. Last year in test one in Australia we lost in the last minute outscoring them three tries to nil.

The second test we were completely outplayed in OZ.

Nienaber has no alternate game plan if the opposition wins the aerial battles, win the breakdown and don't fade at the set piece.

The stats from all the July internationals show that the two strongest statistical predictors of victory were scrum dominance and number of kicks from hand....so Nienaber isn't wrong...

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

Old Man wrote:Nienaber's game plan has become static. No game for the Boks are easy.

His philsophy is fraught with danger. He wants to tire out teams with physicality, his plan is simple, the tight five must put 100% into their efforts, it isn't about whether they make mistakes, it is all about how many engagements can the tight five put in 40-45 minutes, hit as many rucks, tackles in as you can, soften the opposition, stay in the game by winning scrum penalties, kicking for the corner and try to maul a try or two, whilst kicking the kickable penalties.

He uses data that suggests up and under/box kicks into the red zone creates more pressure on opposition teams and can result in scoring opportunities.

Then his methodology suggests when his bomb squad comes on early in the second half he can dominate possession and territory and score more points than the opposition.

The second half scores of the Springboks over the past 18 months confirm that.

However.

This means the opposition is always in the game, regardless who they are. The close results over the past 18 months bear witness to that fact when you look at how many games there were that ended within a score, and that leaves the result up to a penalty going the wrong way.

Boks lost against the Lions, the Wallabies, the All Blacks, Wales and England in last minute penalties during the last 18 months.

Unless the Boks start expanding their game plan to go for a more expansive attack plan they might well lose matches against Scotland and Ireland in the pool stages.

At this point I have zero confidence in his game plan.

The next few weeks will be crucial in defining where the Boks are at. They host NZ twice, and NZ is going to throw everything at them, a ten minute burst in either test will end up a losing match for us. Last year in test one in Australia we lost in the last minute outscoring them three tries to nil.

The second test we were completely outplayed in OZ.

Nienaber has no alternate game plan if the opposition wins the aerial battles, win the breakdown and don't fade at the set piece.

The stats from all the July internationals show that the two strongest statistical predictors  of victory were scrum dominance and number of kicks from hand....so Nienaber isn't wrong...

Nienaber is wrong, but he is conservative, and that puts every match in the balance.

Old Man wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

Old Man wrote:Nienaber's game plan has become static. No game for the Boks are easy.

His philsophy is fraught with danger. He wants to tire out teams with physicality, his plan is simple, the tight five must put 100% into their efforts, it isn't about whether they make mistakes, it is all about how many engagements can the tight five put in 40-45 minutes, hit as many rucks, tackles in as you can, soften the opposition, stay in the game by winning scrum penalties, kicking for the corner and try to maul a try or two, whilst kicking the kickable penalties.

He uses data that suggests up and under/box kicks into the red zone creates more pressure on opposition teams and can result in scoring opportunities.

Then his methodology suggests when his bomb squad comes on early in the second half he can dominate possession and territory and score more points than the opposition.

The second half scores of the Springboks over the past 18 months confirm that.

However.

This means the opposition is always in the game, regardless who they are. The close results over the past 18 months bear witness to that fact when you look at how many games there were that ended within a score, and that leaves the result up to a penalty going the wrong way.

Boks lost against the Lions, the Wallabies, the All Blacks, Wales and England in last minute penalties during the last 18 months.

Unless the Boks start expanding their game plan to go for a more expansive attack plan they might well lose matches against Scotland and Ireland in the pool stages.

At this point I have zero confidence in his game plan.

The next few weeks will be crucial in defining where the Boks are at. They host NZ twice, and NZ is going to throw everything at them, a ten minute burst in either test will end up a losing match for us. Last year in test one in Australia we lost in the last minute outscoring them three tries to nil.

The second test we were completely outplayed in OZ.

Nienaber has no alternate game plan if the opposition wins the aerial battles, win the breakdown and don't fade at the set piece.

The stats from all the July internationals show that the two strongest statistical predictors  of victory were scrum dominance and number of kicks from hand....so Nienaber isn't wrong...

Nienaber is wrong, but he is conservative, and that puts every match in the balance.

And thank you for that.....

My apologies, it is supposed to Nienaber isn't wrong, but he is conservative.