Listen to the audio version of the article
The danger was averted, thanks to a second half in which – at least – Italy conceded little or nothing to Georgia. At the “Ferraris” it ends 20-17 (two tries to two, first half 6-17) and the Azzurri avoid a defeat that would have made the final part of a 2024 which, otherwise, was decidedly positive, very bitter.
Georgia is always looking for confirmation on the international stage, also to demonstrate that it wouldn’t be so illogical to let her go up a floor in the social elevator of rugby. And this time, despite the defeat, it cannot be said that he has taken a step back in terms of ambitions. Or, looking at the other side of the coin, it is correct to underline a modest performance by Italy, which was called upon to make up for the insufficient performance of Udine against Argentina.
The Caucasian Lelos are well below the South American Pumas. And the home national team asserted a clear supremacy both in possession of the ball (68%) and in the occupation of the territory (79% even), as well as a better performance in closed scrums and greater discipline (six free kicks against, 15 in favor). But – and here’s the problem – one-sided statistics have not been followed by a consistent gap in terms of points scored. Even an embarrassing first half, with three offensive outings and two good tries by the Georgians, while the Quesada-trained men ended up against a wall of errors and wrong choices, rarely trying to play wide and trying to engage the opposing defenders with high kicks that rarely they created difficulties for them.
The start of the match was marked by an immediate shoulder injury to captain Lamaro (who finished his autumn commitments here) and by 20 minutes of fighting without moving the scoreboard. The first points belonged to the Azzurri, thanks to a place by Paolo Garbisi, but in the 23rd minute Georgia gave the alarm with the best move of the entire match: a touch won, two match points tackled successfully and then a maneuver in speed of the threequarters with “doubling” of the scrum half Lobshanidze, until he unmarked Tabutsadze for the decisive dive.
On the half hour mark, after a failed long-range attempt by Gallagher, Paolo Garbisi hit the posts, but two minutes later Matkava punished an Italian offside and brought his team back to +4. And three minutes before the break the situation got decidedly worse: a great volley from the talented fullback Niniashvili who invented a slalom and discarded four or five opponents (certainly not impeccable at this juncture), then serving Lobshanidze for an easy goal.
There was the whole second half to overturn the result, and in fact Italy did it. With difficulty, but he did it. Besieging Georgia in their own half of the pitch, and often in the 22-metre area, without granting real chances to opponents who are increasingly tired, more fouled and less clear-headed.
From 8′ to 13′ the pressure became suffocating, until a voluntary “forward” by Tabutsadze, who interrupted a pass-goal with a voluntary “forward”, earning him a yellow card and a technical try (seven points dried) to Italy. Another 10 minutes and the overtaking came. The throw-in was won well and the scrum-half Fusco was introduced, having just replaced Alessandro Garbisi, who immediately found an opening to travel a few meters and go for the goal. With the conversion it was 20-17 for Italy, who seemed to have every chance to further distance their opponents. Which didn’t happen, either due to the sacrifice in defense of the Georgians, or due to another failed placement by Gallagher.
What key adjustments did Italy make in the second half to secure their victory against Georgia?
Guest 1: Professor George Smith, Rugby Analyst from London
Guest 2: Lisa Cavalcante, Italian International Rugby Player
Interviewer: We are discussing the recent game between Italy and Georgia with experts in the field. Let’s start by hearing from Professor Smith about the match.
Professor Smith: Well, it was certainly an exciting game. Italy managed to turn around a difficult first half and salvage a victory against a determined Georgia team. What were your thoughts on the match Lisa?
Lisa Cavalcante: I think it was a tough game for us. We started slowly, but the team showed great character and fought back in the second half. It wasn’t our best performance, but credit goes to Georgia for making it difficult for us.
Interviewer: Let’s talk about the mistakes made by Italy in the first half. Some commentators felt that their decision to kick frequently instead of trying to play wider and run the ball was questionable. Professor Smith, do you agree?
Professor Smith: Absolutely. Georgia’s defense was clearly focused on stopping the run, and Italy failed to adapt their game plan effectively. It seemed like a strange decision to me, as Italy has some very talented backs who could have caused them more problems if they had been given the ball in space.
Lisa Cavalcante: I agree with Professor Smith. We didn’t have the best start, and maybe we could have done better by trying to run the ball more. However, the opposition was well-organized and made it difficult for us to break through their defense.
Interviewer: Moving on to Georgia, Professor Smith, you mentioned that they were looking for confirmation of their place on the international stage. How do you think they fared in this game?
Professor Smith: They played really well. They are a young and improving team, and this match showed that they can compete with the top nations. Their defense was strong, and they held onto possession well. They just need to work on keeping their composure under pressure and making the most of their attacking opportunities.
Lisa Cavalcante: I think they are a team with a lot of potential. They have some great players, and it was clear that they were well-prepared for the game. They deserve credit for pushing us all
