RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Puja wrote:
Out of interest, who scored their tries in the final?

Puja

Beat me to it.

All the tries for South Africa in the knock out stages were scored by backs.

I'm perfectly happy to repeat myself, any amount of evidence for that, and note they'll play with a penalty advantage. But without a penalty advantage you wouldn't need to be much of a mystic to guess what they'd do with possession

So, apart from all the tries scored by their backs, South Africa never use their backs. And it's largely irrelevant whether they do so under advantage or not - if they score tries with them, then it's still 5 points.

Puja

Nobody is dull enough to ignore kolbe surely or does he just score off the cuff trys?

paddy no 11 wrote:Nobody is dull enough to ignore kolbe surely or does he just score off the cuff trys?

Surely the game plan is create him a metre to work in and watch him make you 40m.

To be fair Rassie has them playing a good mix of kick, kick and kick again with occasional smash it up through the massive forward pack and the move the ball to use the explosive backline through a secondary playmaker at 15.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Beat me to it.

All the tries for South Africa in the knock out stages were scored by backs.

I'm perfectly happy to repeat myself, any amount of evidence for that, and note they'll play with a penalty advantage. But without a penalty advantage you wouldn't need to be much of a mystic to guess what they'd do with possession

So, apart from all the tries scored by their backs, South Africa never use their backs. And it's largely irrelevant whether they do so under advantage or not - if they score tries with them, then it's still 5 points.

Puja

I suppose that's one way to look at how systems are used in a game, to just think them largely irrelevant.

I'm not going to say SA are easy to play, because that power is far from easy to deal with. But they're not only not setup to move the ball as a norm they don't even try or look to. I'd say it's laughably simple, but they were quite comprehensively WC winners.

They do have some threats out wide, and you can't ignore that, because they could earn a penalty at any point or kick wide at any point. Any maybe their refusal to play any rugby was just Erasmus V.1

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'm perfectly happy to repeat myself, any amount of evidence for that, and note they'll play with a penalty advantage. But without a penalty advantage you wouldn't need to be much of a mystic to guess what they'd do with possession

So, apart from all the tries scored by their backs, South Africa never use their backs. And it's largely irrelevant whether they do so under advantage or not - if they score tries with them, then it's still 5 points.

Puja

I suppose that's one way to look at how systems are used in a game, to just think them largely irrelevant.

I'm not going to say SA are easy to play, because that power is far from easy to deal with. But they're not only not setup to move the ball as a norm they don't even try or look to. I'd say it's laughably simple, but they were quite comprehensively WC winners.

They do have some threats out wide, and you can't ignore that, because they could earn a penalty at any point or kick wide at any point. Any maybe their refusal to play any rugby was just Erasmus V.1

Your original assertion was "Based on the RWC they don't use their wingers." Which you have now amended to "they don't use their wingers except for all the occasions where they do."

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
So, apart from all the tries scored by their backs, South Africa never use their backs. And it's largely irrelevant whether they do so under advantage or not - if they score tries with them, then it's still 5 points.

Puja

I suppose that's one way to look at how systems are used in a game, to just think them largely irrelevant.

I'm not going to say SA are easy to play, because that power is far from easy to deal with. But they're not only not setup to move the ball as a norm they don't even try or look to. I'd say it's laughably simple, but they were quite comprehensively WC winners.

They do have some threats out wide, and you can't ignore that, because they could earn a penalty at any point or kick wide at any point. Any maybe their refusal to play any rugby was just Erasmus V.1

Your original assertion was "Based on the RWC they don't use their wingers." Which you have now amended to "they don't use their wingers except for all the occasions where they do."

Puja

What I said was:

'Based on the RWC they don't use their wingers. Not unless they've got a penalty advantage'

Which you cropped in your quotation only picking up on the part:

'Based on the RWC they don't use their wingers.'


I don't approach looking at a game that you'll have a massive penalty or set piece advantage, because that can so skew a game of rugby. So yes if you give them penalties other things can happen. But the core of their attack is to kick the ball away, and often with 0 passes on a phase.

We're in no position to much lament 0 passes on a phase and just kicking the ball away, 'cause we've had Youngs doing what Eddie said. But I wouldn't argue England have spent the last few years trying to get as much ball to Watson and May as they could either, often they're principally if not overwhelmingly there to chase kicks.