Actually, does anyone know whether we need to beat Argentina to keep our seeding? That'll affect selection more than anything else.
Printable View
Actually, does anyone know whether we need to beat Argentina to keep our seeding? That'll affect selection more than anything else.
I worked out a month or two ago that we'd need to have a better record than Scotland in these games to keep ahead of them because they play better ranked teams than us. It's possible Argentina have gained points since and that isn't true any more, I'd need to check. As it stood at the start of these games, we'd need a result against Argentina or Scotland not to beat Canada to keep the top 8 seeding, by my reckoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
George Hook mentioned something about losing by less than 15 points. I believe Scotlands narrow defeat means they are closer to Ireland after last weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
No matter how many injuries Ireland have Horgan should never play in the centre!
I agree that no realistic options to O'Driscoll in the short term. His kicking was much better than normal on Saturday as I think that is the worst part of his play.
It's disappointing and poor journalism that nobody knows for sure if we will be 8th or what we need for 8th.
We came into this series being told we needed to match Scotland. 2 defeats and a win over Canada is the best they can do. Even allowing for points difference somebody should have it for definite.
Anybody know what Argentina need for 4th spot?
Anyway we'll probably end up getting Scotland in our pool anyway.
I don't think this is correct. It's a while since I read the points system but you can't gain points for losing and I'm pretty sure that Ireland and Scotland both lost no points over the weekend because New Zealand and South Africa are too far ahead. There's a page explaining the whole thing on irb.com somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Maybe if we lose to Argentina if means Canada have to stay within 15 points of Scotland? Sounds more logical than first suggestion...Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
:confused:
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
However we apparently got nothing for beating Canada.
I appreciate it is complicated but some journalist surely should have it worked out. Maybe we're lucky in football to have a Bert Kassis and a Lucian Marin to do all the complicated calculations for us. However UEFA also do bulletins on this stuff.
You would hope that Declan Kidney and the players are told exactly what is needed going into saturday's match. It could be the idfferenc ebetween kicking a penalty to secure a 2 point defeat rather than trying to win the game and losing the seeding by a narrow margin.
All the details are explained here. Our current rating is 77.18 and Scotland's is 76.76. We play Argentina, rated 82.82 and Scotland play Canada, rated 69.12.
If Scotland beat Canada, their rating will be unchanged at 76.76. If we lose to Argentina, we lose 0.74 points and our rating will be 76.44 and we'll be unseeded. If we lose by more than 15 points, we lose 50% more points and will be rated at 76.08.
If we draw, we'll be rated at 77.44, if we win by less than 15 points, 78.44. In either case, we will be seeded. If Scotland don't beat Canada, we'll be seeded regardless of our result.
I hope this is kind of clear.
duplicate post - already explained better
I'd be gravely worried about our chances of beating Argentina, I'm not confident at all.
Not surprised but a bizarre ranking system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
Not confident about win on Saturday at all. Probably even worse kicking game than last Saturday. While Dempsey is better under the high ball (Argentina will be dropping in garryowens all game)would be tempted to play Kearney at full back for his big kicks. Overall would be surprised to see many changes from AB game.
I think it's a decent enough system as they go. I don't see why the groups and seedings have to decided now though. Why can't they wait until after all the qualifying has finished?Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Is it because the top 8 nations do not have to qualify or has that already been decided by 1/4 finalists?Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
:confused:
I'm pretty confident of beating Argentina. My one change in the backline would be to drop Bowe for Earls. Bowe might be quick, but he's very limited from a footballing perspective and Earls offers more. O'Driscoll needs to be looked at seriously. I believe that the Irish centre partnership will be Earls and Fitzgerald in the not so distant future. I've watched Earls closely since he was an under 8 at Thomond, and make no mistake, his best position is as an outside centre. On current form, I would like to see a baclkine like this let loose, but its never going to happen;
Rob Kearney; Geordan Murphy, Keith Earls, Luke Fitzgerald, Ian Dowling; ROG, Tomas O'Leary.
Up front, I believe Flannery will start, and Jennings will come in with Wallace moving to 6. That would do for me.
So, I believe the team will be:
Dempsey, Earls, O'Driscoll, Fitzgerald, Kearney, O'Gara, O'Leary, Horan, Flnnery, Hayes, O'Connell, O'Callaghan, Wallace, Jennings, Heaslip.
That team will beat Argentina at home...no doubt.
Top three from each group in the last world cup qualified automatically so it's got nothing to do with that. Some of the qualifying matches have already started actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Drawing out the groups closer to the competition would have created a bit of buzz about it too in the build up. I don't get it.
agree with dropping Bowe and bringing in Earls more attacking option having seen Horgan play a few times this year he should stay where he was last game.
Flannery should start only change would make to pack and if Thomas O'Leary starts a few less box kicks from the back of the scrum please
Dowling is not good enough for International rugby as he is not quick enough. I think Bowe will stay in the team for some years.Quote:
Originally Posted by joeSoap
Joesoap I'd assess Bowe the other way around, good footballer, not quick enough to be an international winger (one of the reasons he's been playing a bit at centre for the Ospreys).
I would've thought Dempsey would be dropped before Bowe, with Kearney being able to play at 15 where he's most dangerous.
Quinlan is the only change I'd make in the pack, I'd probably bring Ferris in for some added bulk and speed. There's no way Wallace is a 6 btw, nowhere near the bulk or physicality required.
Don't agree at all. He has plenty of phsicality, tackles like hell and is without doubt the best ball carrier we have. All attributes for a blind side.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Munster 16 AB 10 halftime. Great game & liked the Munster haka before ko.