Let's put the 1/4's in perspective...

I have read some of these comments, and opinions since the RWC 1/4 finals, and there is a wealth of knowledge here, and a lot of valid comments, but I think there is a trend and issue no-one really taking seriously enough!

Player welfare / fatigue!

Of the 4 quarter finals, all 4 teams who were dominant in their matches had a much easier 10-15 days prior to their game.

England played 2 games to Australia's 3 In the 14 day period, no-one can claim an extra game isn't a hinderence, and Australia, as did Japan, Wales and Ireland all looked like they were running in custard!

Wales are the key team to highlight this, Wales have played 3 games in 11 days! And they looked like it first half, being run ragged by a France team looking well rested and we'll prepped. There were 3 key factors for Wales overcoming France...

The red card offset the fatigue difference!

This French team is poor, poor 2nd half v Argentina and Tonga, and they realistically avoided a whipping by England.

Wales conditioning levels, superb to stay in touch throughout.

So, 3 blowouts in the 1/4's, probably largely in part due to opposition fatigue, and a dominant performance thrown away.

What are everyone's thoughts on this?

Wales vs france in the 6 nations played out much the same. As has several england and australia games recently so dont really buy into that much especially as you have the squads to rotate and keep players fresh. Questions to be asked of coaches not sufficiently tailoring their training?
George said that while he thought england benefitted the week off the Wednesday training session was harder than any point of the australia game.

I appreciate that view, but the 6N wales France was due to a superb tactical effort from France, and then pressure from wales. There was very little in comparison to this game where France purely run Wales into the ground within 30.

Training is never as tough as an 80 minutes match, you can maybe reach certain quantifiable levels of physiology, but you can't replicate emotional and intellectual toll, and neither would you want to.

I just find it more than a coincidence that the 4 teams who have played 1 less game than their opponents all dominated, and the similarities of Aus, Japan and Irish performances were all easily linked to fatigue.

Dirtydave wrote:I appreciate that view, but the 6N wales France was due to a superb tactical effort from France, and then pressure from wales. There was very little in comparison to this game where France purely run Wales into the ground within 30.

Training is never as tough as an 80 minutes match, you can maybe reach certain quantifiable levels of physiology, but you can't replicate emotional and intellectual toll, and neither would you want to.

I just find it more than a coincidence that the 4 teams who have played 1 less game than their opponents all dominated, and the similarities of Aus, Japan and Irish performances were all easily linked to fatigue.

Fatigue usually becomes a factor in the second half, and Wales finished stronger than France. I would have to disagree.

Apart from France controlling the game and being done by individual errors albeit thir one being an incredibly dumb intentional one. The only real surprise was the New Zealand result however I haven't seen that game to be able to comment.

You don't think the mitigating factors of the red card, and poor french conditioning made the difference?

The card made a difference in the view that it gave Wales an advantage, French discipline was also an issue.

How poor was the conditioning of the French though?

No 7

Irish performance was much like the Aus performance, mistakes both under pressure and not, slow lazy D line, and individual errors.

In my view both teams looked tired, Australia managed 10 mins of gusto, Ireland managed about 3.

Japan and SA had the closest gametime played in terms of quarter finalists, and japan had the energy in the first half, they however fell off a cliff

French forwards are monsters, but are renowned to play an arm wrestle week in week out, their second halves v argentina and tonga saw their pack tire very obviously

Dirtydave wrote:No 7

Irish performance was much like the Aus performance, mistakes both under pressure and not, slow lazy D line, and individual errors.

In my view both teams looked tired, Australia managed 10 mins of gusto, Ireland managed about 3.

Japan and SA had the closest gametime played in terms of quarter finalists, and japan had the energy in the first half, they however fell off a cliff

Yes, the Japanese were visibly tired, but we know they were one of the fittest teams there. The reason for their fatigue was planned by Rassie Erasmus, having two sets of big physical forwards bashing the $hyte (as put by one of the Japanese players post match) out of the Japanese , took its toll.

So the england Australia game went the same way as when we've played them recently. If these games were played vastly different to the ones before I'd perhaps think there was more of an issue. As they were very similar just cant feel it myself.

South africa played the japan game really intelligently old man. Started strongly obviously the brain fart by mtawarira impacted them but once back they simply tightened up and played a strong set piece game. Perfect game and from that point forward didn't look troubled to me.

Old man

How did Rassies gameplay fatigue Japan when Japan dictated the first half? SA didn't wear them down, japan didn't have the reserves to keep going, regardless of who japan would've played last week they would've struggled second half

They did make a lot of mistakes on attack though. Unforced errors with ball in hand.

But have to admit the first half was very frustrating to watch.

No 7

Any comparison to last Autumns matches are non sensical, unless you consider Wales heavy favourites against SA due to their recent dominance in results?

Dirtydave wrote:Old man

How did Rassies gameplay fatigue Japan when Japan dictated the first half? SA didn't wear them down, japan didn't have the reserves to keep going, regardless of who japan would've played last week they would've struggled second half

It was all about the physicality Dave, being tackled back time after time takes a lot out of a player. Meanwhile they were biding their time.

So they were fatigueing japan by defending more? Seriously?

Sam's foothold didn't come until Japan were physically on their knees, had japan managed to keep the intensity they had first half SA bodies would've tired, as it was they wanted the arm wrestle, and we're allowed it by a Japan team spent, not just physically but emotionally!

Comparisons to recent australia games are very sensible to consider if you're talking about how the game went and potential impacts of 1 fewer game. The match followed a very similar pattern. As did wales France.

I don't see evidence for this to be honest.

Wales haven't been great all tournament.
Japan was a step too far, realistically SA are a class above.
Ireland really are just past peak vs a youthful and firing NZ side. Their 9-10 axis for example is past it.
England-Australia went the same as every recent game.

As will wales vs SA?

Scott

You see no evidence? All 4 teams who have played more games then their opponent were absolutely dominated! Have we ever seen a quarter finals where there were 3 games this one sided?

Dirtydave wrote:So they were fatigueing japan by defending more? Seriously?

Sam's foothold didn't come until Japan were physically on their knees, had japan managed to keep the intensity they had first half SA bodies would've tired, as it was they wanted the arm wrestle, and we're allowed it by a Japan team spent, not just physically but emotionally!

If your defence is rock solid then yes you can fatigue a team through sheer physicality.

Dirtydave wrote:Scott

You see no evidence? All 4 teams who have played more games then their opponent were absolutely dominated! Have we ever seen a quarter finals where there were 3 games this one sided?

All four teams who would have been expected to win, won. Nothing exceptional or that didn't follow general form.

If you look at the extra games, some of them were no more than training matches.

Am I missing the part where South Africa only played three games in the group stages?

All 4 won, but 3 of them were all favourites who had played less games than their opposition. Wales were very lucky france had a red card, or that game would've ended with a france 20 point win!

Soul

They played 4, but they had a bigger rest period than Japan, hence why my point is that Japan were competitive for a longer period than Aus or ireland

SA played all four their pool games

With a 12 day turnaround for a 1/4 final compared to Japan's 7..

Also japan played 2 tier 1 nations, compared to SA's 1 around 3 weeks previous.

Japan were clearly physically and emotionally fatigued.

However, as I stated, this is the game most competitive

South Africa also played two tier one teams in New Zealand and Italy.

South Africa played 2 tier 1 teams.

The initial premise that the schedule can affect some teams more than others has validity.

Even if we ignore the "missing" games, there was an issue with Japan v South Africa. South Africa had (from memory) an 11 day rest before the 1/4 final, but their last game was a runout for the lesser members of teh squad. The key guys had over two weeks rest. Japan meanwhile had a hard fought win ove Scotland just seven days before.

HOWEVER

The Pool schedule was very friendly to Japan, and seemingly designed to give them the very best chance of making the KO stages. They played the first game AND the very last one. Their matches were well spread out with no short turn rounds. To us the Latin phrase de jour - that was their Quid Pro Quo.  Easy pool schedule vs awful 1/4 final schedule.


The issue though is 5 team groups. Rugby is a very physical sport, and ideally you would only be playing over an extended weekend (two matches each day Friday-Sunday). Then you would always get 6 or 7 days rest. However with an odd number of teams in the group you would also have a team not playing every weekend. Thus the tournament would be one week longer.

One week may not sound a lot, but it would have big consequences. Of course one of these would be bleatings from clubs, but they would not be the only ones. Keeping all teams in accommodation for an extra week would increase the cost significantly to host the tournament, Tier 2 teams and their players would be away from home even longer causing a variety of issues.

This has come to a head due to the cancelled games, but the issue is still there anyway. Japan/SA already mentioned, but with the existing schedule England would be playing 5 Tier 1 countries on successive weekends - a schedule no team has ever faced in or out of WC duties.

One issue is that professionalism has arguably brought less diversity in the game. There are not enough teams at a suitable standard to support a 20 team tournament, yet if we do not include the "cannon fodder" teams we can never grow the game.

Italy aren't a tier 1 team, wales Ireland and england all rested players in the 6N's against them, infact didn't Wales make 13 changes and canter to victory?

Plus they played the entirety of the second half against 14...

NZ were the only tier 1 team SA have played, and NZ needed little more that a 15 minute period do do the job.

Ask yourself which route to that quarter final you'd prefer, Japan's or SA's?

So basically if you ignore other points and how other games went. Yes you're completely correct Dave!

I agree london

Japan were given a great chance at qualification, and I am in no way stating this was unfair, as both teams played the same games etc...

I'm using it as an example, japan had a 7 day turnaround compared to SA's 12

Japan were in their first ever quarter

And

Recently had to endure a country shattering death toll mid tournament!

Japan were exhausted, but this merely highlights the trend that teams who were fresher, we're dominant. That's a fact that I'm amazed anyone can argue with

Ignore games that happened nearly a year ago, in different settings, at home, under far less pressure, with different players...

Yes, yes you should ignore games from last year, unless you subscribe to the notion that wales are favourites, as they comfortably dispatched of SA twice last year?

Dirtydave wrote:Italy aren't a tier 1 team, wales Ireland and england all rested players in the 6N's against them, infact didn't Wales make 13 changes and canter to victory?

Plus they played the entirety of the second half against 14...

NZ were the only tier 1 team SA have played, and NZ needed little more that a 15 minute period do do the job.

Ask yourself which route to that quarter final you'd prefer, Japan's or SA's?

Italy are in fact a tier one team.

Wales are favourites, they won the last four vs SA

Wales are huge underdogs, ask any booky!

Stuff.co.nz has Wales 53-47 as making the final vs SA

Officially Italy are a Tier 1 country (and arguably just as much as Scotland are )

If Japan had SA's Pool Schedule their is a strong chance they would not have made it out of the group. They benefitted from having no short turn rounds, while playing sides with short turn rounds.

SA's Matches with Japan's Schedule:

Friday 20th Canada
Saturday 28th New Zealand
Saturday 5th Namibia
Sunday 12th Italy


Japan's Matches with SA's Schedule:

Saturday 21st Ireland
Saturday 28th Russia
Friday 4th Scotland
Tuesday 8th Samoa

(Scotland and Samoa would both have been fully rested)

You mean SA's greatest rivals have their opposition beating them in the semi?

That thoroughly shocks me!

Apologies 57-43

So consistently england and australia games go the same way. Let's ignore. Last time france and wales played it panned out the same way. Let's ignore.
It just sounds like excuses for wales playing a pretty consistent dour game plan.

London

You don't have japan beating Canada, Namibia and Italy?!

I reckon japan cruise through that group in 2nd

Dour game plan? Sounds like Chieka every time Aus played England under him.

He means same opposition, different schedule

I'd personally not use dour for Australia mikey. Stupid. Brain dead. Idiotic. More apt for me.

Dirtydave wrote:London

You don't have japan beating Canada, Namibia and Italy?!

I reckon japan cruise through that group in 2nd

I said same schedule, not same teams. Japan were a third tier side for the draw so could not face Canada, Namibia and Italy.

No 7

The last wales France game didn't in any way mimic this one...

France at home on the first weekend of the 6N were tactically astute, and played with a tactical discipline unknown to them. They were worked out and put under pressure to make silly mistakes wales capitalised on...

Last weekend france run Wales all over the park, and dominated in every facet, until the red card equaliser that kept wales within touch, and they were very lucky a rip dropped for a try.

Context matters, these were very different games in ver different scenarios.

You seem to be taking offence and thinking I'm taking something away from England's performance, I'm not. England are better than Aus, and I think they'll beat NZ in the semi.

My point is, fatigue and the called off games have been massive influencers of the quarters, wales play any other team in the quarters, or France don't get a red card and they lose by 20 points plus

Dirtydave wrote:Japan were exhausted, but this merely highlights the trend that teams who were fresher, we're dominant. That's a fact that I'm amazed anyone can argue with

It's true. But correlation doesn't imply causation. I think all games go the same way regardless.

Regardless, we are where we are. The schedule is a feature of the World Cup. It's unfortunate games were cancelled, but we move on.