Luck of the Oirish eh

Keira-WitherKay

Gearhead wrote: If you want to become world champion you have to be able to beat all the other teams, regardless of the order ?

in principle you right but reality is skewed so to be world champ all you need do is make the final and win ?

Sean

IceCreamMan wrote:
chris77 wrote: Aaaah Crap. That probably means we get the Aussies in the quorter finals and then the all blacks in the semis.
if ever there was a reason to throw a game an end second in the group this is it ..a loss against samoa would be a hellova fortunate thing hey ...

and i betcha Div has had this thought since wales beat samoa...

Any team that would throw a game to try make the path to the final easier will never win the cup anyway.
If we have to play both the Wallabies and the All Blacks, then so be it. If we fall out in the quarters, fine. But just imagine how sweet it would be retaining the cup by beating both those teams ?

Keira-WitherKay

Long as our name gets on the trophy by next year no one will regret a tactical move by fielding the B side to secure a place in finals . And knowing south africans impatience with a team that loses if we go ahead and brave both big teams and get knocked out the criticism will fly rampant that they were not tactical when they had the chance .

IceCreamMan

Sean wrote:
IceCreamMan wrote:
chris77 wrote: Aaaah Crap. That probably means we get the Aussies in the quorter finals and then the all blacks in the semis.
if ever there was a reason to throw a game an end second in the group this is it ..a loss against samoa would be a hellova fortunate thing hey ...

and i betcha Div has had this thought since wales beat samoa...
Any team that would throw a game to try make the path to the final easier will never win the cup anyway.
If we have to play both the Wallabies and the All Blacks, then so be it. If we fall out in the quarters, fine. But just imagine how sweet it would be retaining the cup by beating both those teams ?

the sentiment above means the boks should actually return the trophy for 2007 and ask for their name to be erased from the record books..shhort memories eh....

so let me remind you, in 2007 the boks played neither the all blacks or the wallabies to their word cup win.....

its a sport , sport is not only about talent but about cleverness as well...losing to samoa would be a damn brilliant tactic

Wizard

The nice thing is that our result against Samoa is good either way ?
(assuming we beat Namibia!!)

chris77

No, uh-uh. Not playing to win is like initiating foreplay with the hope of getting a peck on the cheek.
If we win it, we win it. If we don't, let it at least be said we went down fighting.

Sean

IceCreamMan wrote:
the sentiment above means the boks should actually return the trophy for 2007 and ask for their name to be erased from the record books..shhort memories eh....

so let me remind you, in 2007 the boks played neither the all blacks or the wallabies to their word cup win.....

Who would forget that we played neither the Wallabies or the All Blacks in the 2007? No short memories here ? I don't think there are any hidden sentiments in my post ?

IceCreamMan wrote: its a sport , sport is not only about talent but about cleverness as well...losing to samoa would be a damn brilliant tactic

So how would you execute this "tactic" honestly? Let's see, you could pick your weakest 15? But looking at the squad, in all likelihood, that team would probably be strong enough to beat Samoa anyway.
Anything else would be dishonest. Is this really how you would want our national team to represent our country?

Wizard

Losing intentionally is never a tactic.
It just means there's a potential sweetener if the unthinkable happens and we lose to Samoa.

A simpler tactic is to just win all our future games.
Maklik.

IceCreamMan

Keira WitherKay wrote: Long as our name gets on the trophy by next year no one will regret a tactical move by fielding the B side to secure a place in finals . And knowing south africans impatience with a team that loses if we go ahead and brave both big teams and get knocked out the criticism will fly rampant that they were not tactical when they had the chance .

Exactly , i can assure you these discussions and thoughts are being entertained.......the guys dont earn glory or bonuses by not making the final ....thats for sure ....a quarter final and a semi against the toughest teams in the worls will render the boks impotent in a final against any other team that got there i suspect.... these would be 2 hellova tough games that would result in injuries an burnout .....easy pickings for an england team...

i dont think its cheating to throw a game to be honest , it would be a tactic ..... take a step backwards to make 2 forwards (pun) .....believe me this topic is going to be discussed at length at braais ,over beers, in the press and all over ZA in the weeks to come..

the goal is to win the world cup .....lets focus on the goal ...taking the softer route increases yr chances of doing that ...

Wizard

Australia lost to Samoa recently and to Ireland yesterday.
So who would we rather meet in the next round?

pbrizzolari

I think our players had it right when they said the easiest easy to win the cup is to win 7 games in a row. I would be more disappointed if we threw a game than if we lost playing oz or new zealand.

Besides, on any given night our boys can beat any team in the world. Lets not forget that our rusty team beat the new zealanders in pe not 2 months ago.

Have some faith and let the boys play their best rugby. Anything less means we don't deserve to be there.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Sean

IceCreamMan wrote: ....a quarter final and a semi against the toughest teams in the worls will render the boks impotent in a final against any other team that got there i suspect.... these would be 2 hellova tough games that would result in injuries an burnout .....easy pickings for an england team...

In 2009 SA won all but one of their tri nations matches , 4 of their 5 wins was in a row. I would think that was a fair bit tougher? So, not impossible ?

Bob-Dubery

There have been cases of teams throwing a match to advance in a competition or so as to try to get a better draw later on, but I can't recall any in Rugby. There were certainly instances in cricket where the rules usually take net run rate into account when teams are equal on points.

First case I can think of was early 80s when Somerset, playing in one of the English domestic competitions, realised that they were guaranteed to go through to the next round if their run rate didn't decline too much - even if they lost their last group match. Somerset batted first and declared at 1/0 after one over. Amazingly it took Worcestershire all of 8 balls to win the match.

Somerset had read the rules correctly, but the authorities were incensed and kicked them out of the tournament anyway. That match lead to the rule that now applies in all limited over competitions that neither side may declare.

I recall a match in a triangular ODI series where NZ contrived to lose against Australia because it would somehow make things easier for South Africa - who they would rather have played in the final. There was another series in which SA seemed to not try to win against Australia but to lose narrowly, thus denying Oz the bonus point that would have put them in the final.

Generally these days there are additional regulations for cricket tournaments that require all teams to be seen to making an effort - and I'm sure it would be the same in other sports. Throwing games may have tactical benefits, but it's not good for the spectators or the sponsors or for the reputation of the game. It's also not good for people who have money on the game.

Please note: I'm talking here about games being thrown for tactical reasons, not because somebody took a bung.

IceCreamMan

Sean wrote:
IceCreamMan wrote: ....a quarter final and a semi against the toughest teams in the worls will render the boks impotent in a final against any other team that got there i suspect.... these would be 2 hellova tough games that would result in injuries an burnout .....easy pickings for an england team...
In 2009 SA won all but one of their tri nations matches , 4 of their 5 wins was in a row. I would think that was a fair bit tougher? So, not impossible ?

And since then the bokes have won exactly 2 tri nations games in TOTAL if i remember right ...

nothing is impossible ,i take that point....

off to buy my lotto tickets now

REmember the team are incentivised to win the cup ....this is their aim...its nice to be all romantic like and take the stance of not throwing a game but the team are no incentivised to be morally right or gents,....

its also possible that throwing the samoa game means they end up 3rd in the group so i guess its gotta be done carefully.... but i would not be suprised if the bokes lost ...u know resting players ....

domhatch

Keira WitherKay wrote:
Gearhead wrote: If you want to become world champion you have to be able to beat all the other teams, regardless of the order ?
in principle you right but reality is skewed so to be world champ all you need do is make the final and win ?

i'm afraid keira has it 100% bang on the money here - a little simplified - but bang on. it's about winning 7 games in a row. (okay, maybe you can lose 1 in the pool stage, but regardless of who you meet in the knockouts, you gots ter beat 'em all. and we do know that, since '87, the all blacks have cultivated somewhat of a habit of, hmm, how shall i put it... not quite taking those final steps? choking. yes. that's the word. still, this is in their backyard, and they are on top form, but they're not unbeatable. and anything can still happen...

but back on topic. that was a fabulous game. and i loved watching the irish playing a classic game of springbok rugby. let's just hope the bokke can do the same.

just answer me one thing - what's with du preez and pienaar? ok, and one other thing - who else, in a manly and rugby-related sense, loves francois hougaardt?
dh

Squonk

domhatch wrote:
just answer me one thing - what's with du preez and pienaar? ok, and one other thing - who else, in a manly and rugby-related sense, loves francois hougaardt?
dh

Hougaardt is so windgat and typically Blue Bull, but I think he is the right choice for scrummy, he has enough zeal and passion to win the RWC all on his own ?

Jack-Flash-Jr

chris77 wrote: He-he, ja Sean, indeed. That would be brilliant hey. But we haven't won 3 big games in a row in a long time.
And the All Blacks have the air of destiny shrouding them atm. If we pull it off though..... Surely Smittie & co can then be regarded as the greatest team of modern times?

The ABs always have the air of destiny surrounding them. It's a blessing and a curse.

Wizard

The biggest impact of the Irish win is that the Bokke have to modify when they peak.
Facing Australia so soon means they have to accelerate their preparation.

IceCreamMan

The french are being accused of throwin the all black game to ensure they end up in the other half of the draw ........

knowing the frogs as well as i do ...... would not surprise me....

and being a frog myself i betcha the accusations are prolly true .....

Bob-Dubery

IceCreamMan wrote: The french are being accused of throwin the all black game to ensure they end up in the other half of the draw ........

1) It's too early for those sort of tactics. What if you come up against a less-fancied side who suddenly have the game of their lives? Suddenly you've lost TWO games and now your situation is shakey. So you secure a spot in the next round and THEN you think about throwing a match.

2) This is the trouble with match throwing. Once the idea enters your head you can no longer believe what you see on the field of play.