[RWC2019][Semi-Final 2] Wales vs. South Africa (27/10/2019)

[ThebigARena]

How was it the biggest game of the pool when both had qualified anyway? It was the least important of all the matches in that pool.

uh because it decided who topped the group??

 

[Ben Gerber]

Also Gents.. this is the Wales vs SA thread. We should probably be discussing that on here instead of whether or not England got lucky.

 

[ThebigARena]

How was it the biggest game of the pool when both had qualified anyway? It was the least important of all the matches in that pool.

uh because it decided who topped the group??

Off the top of my head 2017 - Dolgopolov pulled out in the first round after a set a bit v Federer, after claiming he was injured (he probably was before the match, but played it to pick up the prize money, so they changed the rules) who went on to win Wimbledon. So effectively Federer only won that Wimbledon playing 6 and a bit matches.

Not the same thing, individual verses team sport and the matchup was officially played just that the other guy couldnt continue through injury, England v France was never officially played .

 

[ncurd]

Let's stick an asterisk against SA they had a 12 day turnaround after the Incredibly taxing Canada match before playing Japan in the knockout stages.

 

[Reiser99]

Bloody hell, not only did Wales bring S.A down to their level, but you guys have let the Welsh posters pull you down and shift the attention away from what this match thread is really about. Finding who would play England in the Final.

 

[Jimbo]

who do you expect gats to pick jimbo?like I say anscombe and Liam are first choice 10 and 15 and biggs and halfpenny are excellent backups. Was he suppose to play patch and Amos at fb in your mind?

Having lost the creativity of Williams at full back I would have started Patchel, which is what I said originally, probably still have HP at FB I was simply saying loosing to creative players is huge by putting Patchel in some of that is negated and you still keep the solidity of HP at the back.

 

[RugbyTackle91]

Bloody hell, not only did Wales bring S.A down to their level, but you guys have let the Welsh posters pull you down and shift the attention away from what this match thread is really about. Finding who would play England in the Final.

I think this is Sam Burgess fault

 

[TRF_heineken]

Let's stick an asterisk against SA they had a 12 day turnaround after the Incredibly taxing Canada match before playing Japan in the knockout stages.

well it was a 4 day turnaround after the Italy match.

But we don't need asterix's or obelix's. We played our 4 pool games. Qualified, and won both our QF and SF. No matter the opposition, we completed the road to the final fair and square.

Don't try and pin this on us buddy, we didn't do the draw or the scheduling. But we certainly planned what we needed to do to get where we are...

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Ugly game. If ever there were a banana skin for us this was it. Wales. Garces. It was ugly but we managed. I can't imagine Rassie dropping Faf or Le Roux now if he hasn't already so the final will be interesting. Faf at least brings some doggedness in D. Not sure what Le Roux is adding ATM.. Pollard at least was on song at goal. Rest of the team I have little qualms over.

How awesome is it that we will be getting into a final vs England and will be going in as decided underdogs!

 

[Bada-Bing!]

uh because it decided who topped the group??

Not the same thing, individual verses team sport and the matchup was officially played just that the other guy couldnt continue through injury, England v France was never officially played .

I disagree, it's still something out of the control of the team or individual's hands; the only difference is in Individual sport like tennis you can't have only one player play by its very nature that it is a one player v one player contest. There are byes where Nadal, Federer and Djokovic got to slam finals. I think Djokovic got to the 2016 US open final after two of opponents pulled out injured on his way to the final; so he only played 5 matches to get to the final. He still lost in the final to Stan Wawrinka even though Stan played 7 matches, so surely Novak should have won being the "fresher" of the two players. But he didn't.

Whereas in a team sport Unless it's a natural disaster and extraneous circumstances- then very rare you get a walkover at tournament. Do you think England didn't want to play their game v France? They were not allowed to because of Habibas and people died in that storm I'd like to remind you. They had no choice. It was a bloody miracle they got Scotland v Japan to play the next day.

Sport doesn't always work like that you play fewer matches you are fresher; sometimes it hurts the team or players/player's momentum and rhythm.

 

[VusoRSA]

You've been the best team in this tournament though, no one can take that away from you guys, I just hope you guys slip up just this once, Good luck to you guys in the Final, may the better team on the day win. And I know the neutrals wish for an expansive beautiful match of Rugby, I could careless, long as we win the World Cup...lets enjoy the repeat of 07, hopefully with the same results as before .

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Let's stick an asterisk against SA they had a 12 day turnaround after the Incredibly taxing Canada match before playing Japan in the knockout stages.

This is the disingenuous rubbish that's going to drag the **** out of this argument. There's luck of the draw in fixturing in any competition, not playing out your fixtures is different.

Like it's fairly simple to accept the called off game was an advantage, even forgetting the 80mins it changes mental prep, travel, nutrition, you take it and move on. No one here is saying that England are undeserving, by virtue of beating the [real] number 1 team and defending champs who had the same advantage and being the only unbeaten side they're the most deserving winners. The France game shouldn't be focused on but once mentioned trying to claim it could have had no adverse effects when in the exact same French fixture four years ago it had huge reprocussions it's dumb, but just like Ireland's injuries four years ago the called off game will be nothing more than a "what if" and ultimately meaningless.

Anyone saying England wouldn't have won if they'd played the game would be as boneheaded as this comparison.

 

[mustardcharlie]

If England win the RWC next week, no one can say they were lucky. They would have beaten Australia, NZ and SA 3 weeks in a row. That has never been done before and for me would surpass 2003's RWC win.

Well quite. I am old enough to remember when the ABs lost for the first time in this country. That's all history and counts for bugger all. The way to beat SA is to out-think them, not out-muscle them. It has always been so.

 

[ncurd]

Don't try and pin this on us buddy, we didn't do the draw or the scheduling.

And we weren't involved in typhoon disaster planning.

Look I think the entire put asterisk thing is utter Horlicks. That would be like saying you had easier run to the semi because you only had to play the ABs as a one off game then could rest your players. Then had a massive rest before playing Japan whom you should of beaten comfortably provided you took them serious enough.

But that's utter beeswax and so is suggesting an England win is any lesser.

If England did play France would they belittling SA achievements despite having to play 5 Tier 1 games in 4 weeks? Nah we'd bigging up our own hoping we win next week.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

You've been the best team in this tournament though, no one can take that away from you guys, I just hope you guys slip up just this once, Good luck to you guys in the Final, may the better team on the day win. And I know the neutrals wish for an expansive beautiful match of Rugby, I could careless, long as we win the World Cup...lets enjoy the repeat of 07, hopefully with the same results as before .

Haha. Yes, some tjop back in this thread was saying he was hoping for a spectacle of a final. Has there ever been exhibition rugby played in a RWC final? Its a game for the purist. the rest can go fish.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Ugly game. If ever there were a banana skin for us this was it. Wales. Garces. It was ugly but we managed. I can't imagine Rassie dropping Faf or Le Roux now if he hasn't already so the final will be interesting. Faf at least brings some doggedness in D. Not sure what Le Roux is adding ATM.. Pollard at least was on song at goal. Rest of the team I have little qualms over.

How awesome is it that we will be getting into a final vs England and will be going in as decided underdogs!

Well it was a very big mental victory for us, as they beaten us on both occasions last year.

Anyone expecting us to play flashy rugby in a playoffs needs to wake up from their pipedream. When a single point is all we need to win, then we will play the ugliest rugby (in some people's view). But I love the way we play. Our strengths are in defense and set piece and we have 2 solid packs willing to battle it out. Plus we're a very young team, and the plan was to get a core group for 2023, especially since Rassie only started as our interim coach last year.

 

[ncurd]

. No one here is saying that England are undeserving,

Actually that's entirely what they are saying by saying there should be an asterisk against us if we win.

I appreciate you are not on that side but that is what kicked this off.

Did England get a some advantage? Sure it was touch fixture layout for us. Enough that people saying our world cup win is deserving of some caveat put against it? **** off.

 

[TheOvalBall]

Well it was a very big mental victory for us, as they beaten us on both occasions last year.

Anyone expecting us to play flashy rugby in a playoffs needs to wake up from their pipedream. When a single point is all we need to win, then we will play the ugliest rugby (in some people's view). But I love the way we play. Our strengths are in defense and set piece and we have 2 solid packs willing to battle it out. Plus we're a very young team, and the plan was to get a core group for 2023, especially since Rassie only started as our interim coach last year.

South Africa had two massive mental victories in a week.

First against Japan and the whole world.
And Wales after they beat Boks last 3 occasions.

 

[Reiser99]

Look simple fact is only team that could have been in the quarterfinals that wasn't is Italy and no one genuinely believes they would have beaten NZ. England will have beaten every team by virtue of beating the winners of each game to the final, therefore in terms of how knockout stages work the best team is left standing. People always talk about who has the easier run, hell most people said S.A were in the final as soon as the pools finished and got an easier run by losing. All irrelevant in the end. Winner will be the winner, fair and square. Anyone who wants to put an asterisk by it to claim it could have been different is just a sore loser and quite simply a hypocrite, because they certainly wouldn't have brought it up if their team was in the final.

Edit: To be clear in case I wasn't if S.A win, anyone who says there is an asterisk by them because of the storm can see my above answer as well at it applies to whoever wins or could have won out of the quarterfinals.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

If England win the RWC next week, no one can say they were lucky. They would have beaten Australia, NZ and SA 3 weeks in a row. That has never been done before and for me would surpass 2003's RWC win.

Hate to steal any thunder but that convenient little week off at the end of the pools will always put an asterisk on this one if you do get the win imho... and consequently I would rate 2003 higher.

#justsayin

Actually that's entirely what they are saying by saying there should be an asterisk against us if we win.

I appreciate you are not on that side but that is what kicked this off.

Did England get a some advantage? Sure it was touch fixture layout for us. Enough that people saying our world cup win is deserving of some caveat put against it? **** off.

These two posts started it, I'd say both are wrong when taken at face value. If @bushytop means this asterisk of his to connote England as undeserving I totally disagree, I've read some of his other posts on the matter and don't think that's what he meant though. More just that there was no luck to the extent of that match in the 03 run at all at all.

It's for him to clarify if he wants but I think it's a poor choice of words!