Everybody has heard the phrase ‘lose the battle but win the war’, and many rugby fans are wondering if this tactic will be employed at the 2019 Rugby World Cup.
That is, will certain countries hold back their A team, field a mix-and-match side against less talented opponents, and not care if they lose because they’ll be keeping their powder dry for the big matches later on?
Remembering Japan’s jaw-dropping win over the Springboks in the last RWC, let’s take a look at this year’s pools and expected winners. World rankings are shown in brackets.
In Pool A, Ireland (3) will field their strongest side against Scotland (7) but will get some relief against Japan (11), Russia (20) and Samoa (17).
In Pool B, New Zealand (1) have only South Africa (5) to worry about. The All Blacks will not be concerned about Italy (14), Namibia (23) or Canada (21).
This means that if they want to, NZ can shelter some of their stars and field a strong second-string team for the contests against the three lowly ranked countries.
In Pool C, England (4) will want to shoot their best shot against unpredictable France (8) and the Pumas (10). They can rest some players against the US (15) and Tonga (13).
The Wallabies’ Pool D is the group that demands the smartest tactics.
(Photo by Phil Walter/Getty Images)
Australia (6) face Fiji (9) then Wales (2), Uruguay (16) and Georgia (12).
The Wallabies will have to play their A side against Fiji. If they win that game, they should be able to count on defeating Uruguay and Georgia with a mix of A and B players.
Once fairly strong, Uruguay is now a tier-two rugby nation and is not expected to offer much resistance.
Georgia, another tier-two outfit, have had some mixed recent results, beating Tonga by 11 points and Samoa by 8 but losing to Italy by 11, Japan by 28 and Fiji by 22.
So here is the question: should the Wallabies select their strongest team against Wales in the hope of a win, and thus fire a warning shot at the more favoured countries?
Or should they bank a win over Fiji then field a mix-and-match team against Wales?
Conservatives will go for the first option. The more adventurous will say, “Why break your bones against the tough, supremely confident Six Nation champs? Field a less-than-best side against them and shoot the lights out against Fiji.”
Let’s make one thing perfectly clear: I am not suggesting or advocating that any country should throw a game.
That would be unsporting and totally immoral.
But there is nothing wrong with protecting your key players while managing your way to the quarter-finals.
Here are my predictions for the quarters.
Winner Pool A vs runner-up Pool B: Ireland vs South Africa
Winner Pool B vs runner-up Pool A: New Zealand vs Scotland
Winner Pool C vs runner-up Pool D: England vs Australia
Winner Pool D vs runner-up Pool C: Wales vs France/Argentina
Go ahead, Roarers, tear me to shreds.
ShaghaiDoc
Roar Rookie
What if Australia goes down to Fiji? They beat the French comprehensively in a match I like to re-watch. And the Whining Welsh are allegedly the best team outside "THE CHAMPIONSHIP". Yes I know they could not beat a Kiwi franchise and probably not even the Rebels but nor could the Wannabes. On the other hand the Fijians might put one over the Whingeing Welsh and their record against Australia is only slightly better than against the All Blacks, having not won a match since 1952-53 when the Reds cheated by paying their players.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Well its exactly what hansen did in 15...and subsequently got called arrogant for that as well. So it seems one is arrogant...no matter what they do. :-)
taylorman
Roar Guru
Obviously, you seem to be the expert on it.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Too much arrogance there…. taylorman.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
And did you enjoy the insult?
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
I stand behind my comment. I'm not specifically targeting your team , my own Boks guilty of the same but I do believe 1995 AB's ran too fast too hard in the prelims and that is the context of this article. It was on paper a pretty ordinary Bok side. At least Mandela got some credit.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
No it's called Muti. A secret African potion.
wade fite
Roar Rookie
I suggest Australia take a dive against Uruguay and Georgia, then lose a close one to both Wales and Fiji. That way the boys can settle back to enjoy watching the tournament with a few Asahi Super-dry''s, and start planning for 2023. (Tip watch the tier 1 nations...you might learn a thing or two).
Franklin
Roar Rookie
So you're suggesting a better idea is to disrespect the Japanese by not playing and then pummel them when they get angry. Glad you're not the coach.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Well, they did try. And honestly, I dont think your experience speaks for the ability of the All Blacks to manage or not manage it.
taylorman
Roar Guru
No they werent, they werent good enough. Is arrogance high on your 'reasons teams win or lose' list. If so, how about pointing out the arrogant teams before the match. I'd suggest 'arrogance' is a lot further down the list than you seem to want to portray.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes, a team of greats that struggled here, struggled there. The final was an anomoly. More to it than you suggest. But we wont get into that. Its been done more times than sliced bread.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes, calling them arrogant then suggesting playing a World cup match as a training run, ha ha...takes the cake.
taylorman
Roar Guru
I agree, but look at if SA beat NZ first up. Winner of Ireland Scotland play NZ all other things being the norm. NHers currently see SA as very poor so I dont think either will be celebrating the win in any big way, as by doing so they would be sealing their fate, if rankings are true to form thereafter.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes Wales can punish you but they're poor tourists and cant put a string of away matches together. The knockouts will sort them out after one tough match too many. Yes theyre on a run, but that means nothing and everything at a World cup- not required beforehand, a must during.
taylorman
Roar Guru
In terms of test experience they must be miles ahead. How many tests will Jones and Naisarani have played. Thats a completely untested backrow.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes also interesting with that game being on first is the Scotland Ireland match a day or two later. If SA knock NZ off the winner of that match is likely to meet NZ so both the individual and collective effort could be interesting, though SA would obviously be a more daunting prospect having done that. But imagine two top sides both trying to throw a match. :-)
Fionn
Guest
Taylorman, on the other side at least the All Blacks and Boks will have a minimum of their stars injured in the first match. It also means after the very tough first match, many of the top Saffa and Kiwi players can play limited minutes for the next three rounds, and also gives more time to overcome any injuries picked up in that first match. Would be great if it ends up being a New Zealand vs South Africa final. World Cup opens and closes with the same fixture.
taylorman
Roar Guru
'This means that if they want to, NZ can shelter some of their stars and field a strong second-string team for the contests against the three lowly ranked countries.' This is dangerous and why pool play remains the worst prep for AB sides. NZ play SA on Sept 21 and the quarter final isnt until 19 October, a full 4 weeks later. Why the top two seeds play first I don't know but at least the next best, Italy, is a week before the quarters. Hansen will play full strength and full on vs SA and will then have to get creative, last time limiting the AB options to create pressure to keep players up to best match form. This time they may simply go full on vs SA and Italy (who unfortunately by then will likely be out) and play seconds versus the two middle teams.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Personally I don’t think he veiled the insult, it was stated pretty plainly I thought. As to your point, hindsight is a wonderful thing, had the final gone the other way we wouldn’t be having this conversation. My thoughts is that this is revisiting what happened through the lens of history and results, rather than objective analysis.