RWC warm up matches

[Firo_]

Italy go almost full strength against Romania. Romania finally select lots of their first choice players in position, with the exception of the halfbacks, with a combined age of 41, who have never played together before. Talk about a baptism of fire.

They did play together before for Romania U20. It's not much since our U20 team has about 7 days of training during a year but it's something and they looked good together.
Out of all our younger players those two are the ones with the most potential. Besides pure skill I think both are hard-working, have very good mental and a drive to perform.

The early red card ruined the match, the scoreboard looks bad but I've seen a few signs of improvement although the bar was set really low tbh.
Moreover, we had a few injuries (Mureșan, the young flyhalf, injury worries me the worst; he might miss the RWC) + Moțoc will be suspended and he will be a big loss for us.

Despite all the hate against Apjok and the selection, I would wait for the RWC to end before I talk about our staff. Maybe something can still be salvaged and we won't embarrass ourselves.

 

[Al Bangor]

USA Eagles 15s beat Romania 31-17 earlier this month. They followed that up with losses to Portugal 46-20 and Georgia 22-7. Good luck to Romania, Portugal and Georgia in the RWC.

But the USA qualified for the 2024 Paris Olympics by winning all four matches in Canada over the weekend. The USA has been better at 7s than they have at 15s for a long time. Go Eagles!

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

This might sound silly but given the exposure to cards, citations, and injuries, aren't some of these games (say, nz vs rsa) a colossal risk with the wc around the corner?

Don't get me wrong, as a rugby fan i love these games as much as the next guy but if my objective was to win the WC i would NOT take some of these games. Having the biggest card in rugby a week before the world cup is nothing short of mental in my book.


And if you tell me, dunno "Listen, their first 2 games are against Chile and Portugal, so they've got a week or two to get their things sorted in terms of cards/rest/injuries" I could understand the calculated risk. But the first-round games look kinda massive. Fra v NZ, RSA v Sco, etc.

 

[die_mole]

This might sound silly but given the exposure to cards, citations, and injuries, aren't some of these games (say, nz vs rsa) a colossal risk with the wc around the corner?

Don't get me wrong, as a rugby fan i love these games as much as the next guy but if my objective was to win the WC i would NOT take some of these games. Having the biggest card in rugby a week before the world cup is nothing short of mental in my book.


And if you tell me, dunno "Listen, their first 2 games are against Chile and Portugal, so they've got a week or two to get their things sorted in terms of cards/rest/injuries" I could understand the calculated risk. But the first-round games look kinda massive. Fra v NZ, RSA v Sco, etc.

It's tough. I wonder if teams could do training sessions to minimize the disciplinary factors. I do think teams are going to want the revenue from these matches.

Injuries are going to happen in the build up to an event, I don't know how you'd avoid them.

I guess if you knew your pool was a walk through you could just use your pool games as warm up.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Is it really that tough? I seriously don't know. I guess/hope someone other than WR has looked into this and that WR hasn't put a gun to RU's head to comply with it.

The question i have is: do you really need warm-up games 2 weeks before your 1st world cup games? I'd like to hear an expert on this because i am very strongly inclined to believe you do not.
Don't get me wrong, it benefits me if nz and rsa tear each other apart, but i don't see the need for them. I mean, let's look at what happens in other sports. Argentina playing Brazil the week before both play serious world cup games? Lunacy. The coaches, FA's and everyone involved in that decision would be crucified and rivers of blood would flood Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo.

I couldn't help thinking about the rugby championship. They cannot play week in and week out. Sometimes they need an extra week to rest in between. Sure, there's more traveling involved, but still. Playing Wales, NZ the two weeks prior to your games against Scotland doesn't look like the brightest idea ever. Especially with the kind of physicality that the South African teams bring to the table.
I used rsa as an example but this is clearly not exclusive to them. I mean, England lost arguably their best two players in two inconsequential warm-up games.

What is the purpose of a warm-up game? To warm up!! It's in the bloody name. **** the score. Take a bland opponent and just warm the **** up. Once you are warmed up, take key players off the field and minimize risks.

 

[die_mole]

From the physical side I know that in endurance sport the science is agreed upon by experts in terms of peaking and efforts leading up to it. I think the debate will probably be more about technical skills and the mental aspect of things.

I agree with you. There's no reason for England and wales to play a series or Scotland and France to play a home and home.

The one thing that sort of makes sense about the current system is that there are really only 13 solid international teams right now (some up and some down) and if you want to gauge yourself before the World Cup you'll need to have some type of competition with them. I'm confident a team could go in with just a camp and a scrimmage and be more than adequately prepared but I don't know how much support they'd get from their union.

 

[Which Tyler]

They're all 2 weeks before the RWC, rather than 1, which makes a pretty big difference in terms of recovery from minor knocks / HIAs, but I do agree that this weekend's round of matches are the least necessary - depending on how they're used.
I really don't see the point in going full-blooded for them, except in the odd case (eg England) of pseudo-panic that we're just desperate to find some form somewhere - in which case, I'd suggest a week on the beach trying to forget about rugby after a 10-week camp might be more beneficial.
But as a "we'll play the reserves, and the injury back-up players to knock some rust off" - and a gentleman's agreement between coaches that that's what you're doing, and not going full-bore - I can see the point. Even then, I don't agree with it, but I can see it.

Where I think I'm most in favour of them, is that of the 6N and QN teams, only 1 has opted not to have a match this week - which suggests to me that the actual professionals are nearly unanimous in that it's a good idea to play this week. I'm happy to acknowledge that they know far more than I about preparation for big tournaments, and how to bring yourself to peak at the right time.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

They're all 2 weeks before the RWC, rather than 1

Fair enough, my bad. Thanks for pointing out my mistake, appreciate it!

I still think given the intensity that comes with a WC (not just important games, but a lot of games in a very short period of time) having a fresh and well-rested squad is paramount.

I really don't see the point in going full-blooded for them

can you have a NZ vs RSA game with both teams cruising at half-speed? I don't see it. We can rationalize it all we want and in the breaks in sure it's all fine and dandy, but no one there wants to lose.

Where I think I'm most in favour of them, is that of the 6N and QN teams, only 1 has opted not to have a match this week

It's not just about playing a game. The type of game matters. Arg is playing Spain and using a disproportionate amount of subs as starters. I can fully understand and rationalize the Arg case:

- We are minimizing the risk of injury by going against a much weaker team. That means you dont push yourself as hard which implies a considerably lower risk of injury.
- Even with subs we should be reasonably comfortable against them, meaning they'll do most of the defending which is where most of the cards come from. So this is a way of managing the other big risk.
- It's not a derby, which means both teams won't be out for blood.
- We'll probably win which is not a huge ego boost but it's always good for morale.

I could argue the same about Sco vs Georgia. But playing your eternal rival just before a world cup where after that you get to face a solid candidate? At (their) home? Not particularly smart.

 

[Which Tyler]

Agreed - the only matches between "equals" I see this weekend are NZ v SA and Fr v Aus; everyone else is playing cross-tier.

I don't get it personally, and prefer a good 3 weeks, but I still bow to the superior knowledge of the pro.s - players, coaches, S&C, physios, sports psych...

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Curveball: say you face an arguably weaker opponent but one that is consistently, let's call it, physical. Would you be ok with that?

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I would argue it is completely irrelevant whether France or NZ win on opening night. Win or lose, I would not change their chances of getting to the QFs or winning the tournament. Their potential SF also likely will not be easier or harder depending on whether they are first or second in the pool.

Same for England vs Argentina. Because (broken record) the idiotic draw means in both halves of the draw you could barely slip a cigarette paper between the likely top two sides in each group. So I would be taking it easy in the warm ups for those teams in terms of injuries. I would not worry about warm up red cards for those teams for players without a disciplinary history as they would be unlikely to get more than 4 games and miss the QF.

With a normal draw I would have been more serious about warm ups because being runner up in your group would mean almost certainly facing one of the four best sides in the world in the QF.

The exception is Scotland and, to a lesser extent the Boks. They need to be primed for the first match because the loser of that would then be facing elimination against Ireland. Particularly for Scotland that makes risking a warm up red card or injury is worth it.

EDIT: Georgia and Australia, plus Wales and Fiji arguably should also be playing their first choice in their last warm up match. Those are loseable opening fixtures for the complacent.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

And as has been mentioned elsewhere, SA vs NZ will in large part be about money rather than RWC preparation. Both nations really struggle to avoid players drifting towards Japan.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I would argue it is completely irrelevant whether France or NZ win on opening night.

That would imply that, for instance, NZ has no preference between playing Ireland or South Africa on QFs. Or that France is indifferent between facing Ireland or South Africa.
I understand what you are selling, but I am not buying it.

If those games were irrelevant, as you claim, we should expect teams to field their worst team and save their best for the relevant games. Something tells me that is not what we are about to see.

I would not worry about warm up red cards for those teams for players without a disciplinary history as they would be unlikely to get more than 4 games and miss the QF.

England lost their two best players to cards and neither of them will be able to face Japan no Arg. That, again, implies they are indifferent between facing the 1st or the 2nd from roup C. I don't buy that.

And as has been mentioned elsewhere, SA vs NZ will in large part be about money rather than RWC preparation. Both nations really struggle to avoid players drifting towards Japan.

This I can understand and concede to.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I'll use this as an example. Arg's squads vs NZ, RSA and AUS AND tomorrow's one against Spain.
See any trends?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

That would imply that, for instance, NZ has no preference between playing Ireland or South Africa on QFs. Or that France is indifferent between facing Ireland or South Africa.
I understand what you are selling, but I am not buying it.

Winning the opener barely affects that though, Ireland v SA and NZ v France both look as close to 50/50 games as you'll get in pool stages at a world cup.

I agree that all those teams will want to win those games though, with the exception being SA, I don't think any of the remaining top 4 sides react particularly well to a loss. But getting their preference between Ireland and SA won't be in the minds of NZ or France in this one.

If those games were irrelevant, as you claim, we should expect teams to field their worst team and save their best for the relevant games. Something tells me that is not what we are about to see.

Agree here, I've seen talk of resting Sexton against SA and making a big push from Scotland onwards, I'd be worried if we took such a relaxed approach to a pool decider.

 

[Welsh Exile]

It's cliche but confidence and momentum is key. For sure you can lose your opening game and still lift the cup but that's only happened once before. Always better to lead with your best foot forward and I'm sure that's what NZ and France will be looking to do in the opener.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

That would imply that, for instance, NZ has no preference between playing Ireland or South Africa on QFs. Or that France is indifferent between facing Ireland or South Africa.
I understand what you are selling, but I am not buying it.

If those games were irrelevant, as you claim, we should expect teams to field their worst team and save their best for the relevant games. Something tells me that is not what we are about to see.


England lost their two best players to cards and neither of them will be able to face Japan no Arg. That, again, implies they are indifferent between facing the 1st or the 2nd from roup C. I don't buy that.


This I can understand and concede to.

Well you are arguing it is foolish to go full strength at warm ups due to the risk of injury and red cards. I agree. I simply say the same logic applies to the first round of pool games for the nations I mentioned given the way the QF draw will unfold if it goes by ranking.

I do not think the nations will play weak selections, just like they did not play weak selections in the warm ups.

If one of the nations I mentioned goes full tilt in the pools and loses a critical player to injury (for example, one nursing an injury who then makes it worse) or to a red card then I think it is reasonable to say a different approach might have increased their chances of winning the tournament.

Of course sides will want to build momentum and improve morale by winning games, but that logic could apply as equally to the warm ups as the pool games.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Well you are arguing it is foolish to go full strength at warm ups due to the risk of injury and red cards. I agree. I simply say the same logic applies to the first round of pool games for the nations I mentioned given the way the QF draw will unfold if it goes by ranking.

But that is absolutely not the same logic....
Let's break it down.
1) The objective is to win the world cup.
2) What the scoreboard says at the end of a warm up match has zero, null, no impact whatsoever on the outcome of the world cup (other than morale, course).
3) You cannot say the same thing about the first pool matches.
4) if the impact of the result of the game on the objective differs, then same logic does not apply.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

But that is absolutely not the same logic....
Let's break it down.
1) The objective is to win the world cup.
2) What the scoreboard says at the end of a warm up match has zero, null, no impact whatsoever on the outcome of the world cup (other than morale, course).
3) You cannot say the same thing about the first pool matches.
4) if the impact of the result of the game on the objective differs, then same logic does not apply.

As I laid out, the result in the opening round is just as irrelevant in determining your chances of winning the world cup as the warm up matches were for a number of teams. Due to the pathetic draw. I appreciate not everyone will agree.

Boks and Ireland are now effectively level on 91 ranking points. Why do you think France or NZ should care which of those they face in the QF? I guess you could argue 1st place for NZ increases the hypothetical chance of getting Scotland instead in the QF.

Or take the Pumas. What scenario do you think gives the greatest chance of winning the RWC?:
A) win their group playing full strength a lot of the time, but lose Carrerras & Matera to red card or injury
B) come second in their group, limiting some play time for key starters like Carrerras and Matera, and lose two fringe players to a red card and injury

I would argue scenario B is clearly favourable for the Pumas in the QF, SF and final and follows your logic of taking it easy during warm ups.

I would in no way be arguing this if the draw was not broken.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Italy vs Japan has the same kickoff as Scotland vs Georgia.

This is what my personal 7th circle of hell looks like.