South Africa, have the pundits missed a trick?

First topic message reminder :

I have been pondering the possibility of the Springboks being able to win this world cup, and after having seen the amount of criticism they have received (which is par for the course) I started to falter in my belief.

I prefer to read opinions on my team from sources outside of South Africa simply because your own press tends to be biased and do not provide an objective view on sports. So stuff.co.nz, the New Zealand Herald and The Australian are my preferred reading material.

It does take a lot of guts to listen to some of the overly biased pundits on these websites because as our pundits are biased towards us, these guys are even worse. There is little diplomacy or tact in the way they can criticise another team and they manage to rile their supporters into quite a frenzy at times.

This was clearly evident after the Samoa test where many comments were rather nasty towards South Africa.

Anyway through all this electronic information, every now and again you read something that makes you think.

I got a totally different perspective from reading this comment on the New Zealand herald.

Ybgur Noinu (Dunedin)
03:48 PM Tuesday, 4 Oct 2011
As Peter de Villiers explained, the Springboks were aware of the over robust play of the Samoans and decided to kick possession back at the Samoans after half time, so that the Springboks were no longer targets of the head high tackles. It was a ploy to keep the injury rate down.

Any one with brains can see that this is exactly what the Springboks did. They were in no danger of losing the match because if they wished they could have gone back into the tight mauls, kept possesion, forced penalties and scrums got the three pointers if their lead were threatened. They did just enough to win - in fact they did not even need to win anyway.

The Samoans played like desperados and were given possession purposely by the Boks, but could only score one try - off a knock-on. An actual try by the Boks was not given because of lack of evidence. Stop knocking the Springboks - their discipline had been good so far and they have played some real power rugby, which they can turn on in an instance. No one wants to admit it, but they are actually the team to beat.

This started to make me think that perhaps there are quite a number of pundits and posters alike that have missed a trick from the south Africans

What if:
Pieter de Villiers and his cohorts have used the pool matches as their preparation for the knock out rounds. As we all know the controversial Rustenburg saga ahs precluded the first choice players from playing some of the away matches of the Tri Nations.

What are the most important factors form a springbok point of view for retaining their trophy?

Defence:
Well they have been severely tested by Samoa and Wales in that department having made in excess of 300 tackles in those two matches.

Attack:
With both Wales and Samoa having very well organised defensive systems and being rather strong in the physical stakes, they had to execute well on attack to win these two matches, making 3 clean breaks, 12 defenders beaten and 15 offloads with the little possession they had. In my opinion it shows how clinical they were in finishing off the few opportunities they had.

In contrast to Wales and Samoa it seems they used the two test matches against Fiji and Namibia to hone their attacking skills making 11 clean breaks, 55 defenders beaten and 35 offloads. Granted neither Fiji or Namibia was really up to the task, but it could still be seen as a full contact practice run at worst.

Discipline:
They have shown to be the most disciplined team in the pool rounds of all the top teams and strangely were more penalised in attack than in defence, which tells me they handled the pressure in a very disciplined manner.

Goal kicking:
Morne Steyn has thus far been one of the stand out kickers during the tournament.

Matchday 22:
I think it is pretty clear who are the best 22 in the springboks squad, but for a few selection issues with John Smit and Bismarck du Plessis, Danie Rossouw and Bakkies Botha, and perhaps Francois hougaard and Fourie du Preez.

Impact subs:
South Africa have been able to test their bench during this time and I would be quite confident to say that in Bismarck du Plessis, Francois Hougaard, Willem Alberts and Beast Mtwarira we most likely have the best impact from the bench of all the teams.

So as much as I listen to the critics from all over the world, it is just maybe a case of everyone outside the camp missing a trick of what has been transpiring inside the springbok squad over the past few weeks.

Either that, or I am just blowing smoke up my own back side.

emack2 wrote:Since the game went professional The All Blacks have played 186 games
losing 33 and drawing 2.
Australia 14 wins out of 42 games,South Africa 13 wins out of 41 games,
France have won 4 ,England 2.an 81.80 win rate.
Under Graham Henry that percentage is near 85%,only France twice have
of NH sides since 2003.
The Boks in 2010 could well have won 3 and should have won 2 in 2010 3Ns.
The 2011 Boks losses,and the Bok home win against the All Blacks were all scratch sides.NONE of them had any chance versus the relavent A sides.
THE only significant results 2011 3Ns was Australias loss and win to the All Blacks.The Home win versus the Boks.

BOks in 2010 could have well won 3 ? i rather doubt it , just like Carter and Mccaw are vital to All black aspirations FDP and Brussow are vital to ours and they werent there last year

In one of the games concernd the ABs scored to late trys,one against Aus they took Morne Steyn off.leaving no goal kicker on the park.
both games could have gone either way.
All Blacks probably won two they should`nt have,now 2009 without Ali Williams,Dan Carter,and a match fit Mc Caw that was another matter.

Cymroglan wrote:I still cant work out how Australia won the tri nations if their scrum was as inconsistent as it was against Ireland.

In a nutshell...

1 SA played their away matches without any/ many of their top side so with 2 matches gave away the title
2 NZ thrashed both SA (2nd side) and beat Oz (full side) at home then left 9 players behind for a match in SA that they could have sewed up the title (not saying we would have- we could have) with had they all played. It was a gamble we had to take to determine if key players would be in the WCup. Dagg was one GH said was NOT going to the world cup if not for SA so you could say we gained from that.
3 Oz played their top team right through, simply because they had to- Samoa basically said if you play seconds, this is what will happen. That is also what showed against Ireland whether they admit it or not. Pocock and Ioane were world best at that point in time and Moore was the nail- their best tight, loose and running back all gone.

Then Oz nailed the 'final' with a brilliant performance at Brisbane- so it was a comedy of errors to start with with half teams but Oz won the key match and deserved the title.

the NH havnt faced anything like what Oz are capable of yet as they havnt had their full side.

What? None of that makes any sense.

why do play home and away tri nations- it must be so boring- why dont you incorporate others?

Well the Tri Nations is changing next year, so hopefully that will be more exciting.

This alternating 2 home and 1 away test tri nation thing never really worked.

Well the main reason others are not incorporated is because they wouldnt be able to compete. 3N is the top 3 ranked (usually).
The next 6 ranked are usually the 6N.
Then theres argie who are in next year and in all honesty will struggle.
Then we're down to samoa tonga japan etc.
The first two couldnt cope financially nor host big matches at home.
So 'others' is really argie or japan.

oh so the argies are in next time- thats good and a start.

I think Japan will always stuggle in the physical stakes anyway.

I would like to see the Fournations to be played every second year though and see some test series between these 4 countries as an alternative.

I think we should also make the 6n's every second year and have a euro cup every other year and incorporate the likes of georgia, romania portugal, spain etc

Do the baby blacks and SA/Oz b sides still play Fiji, Samoa & Tonga (almost said Pacific Is oops) every year?

I think we def need to introduce more games between top tier nations and the 2nd/3rd tier nations. And it's a shame the PI side didn't work and to a lesser extent the East African side, as those amalgamated sides could challenge much higher up. (ignoring all the rivalry, cultural problems and such).

Not SA, and as far as I remember australia A was withdrawn from the pacific nations cup. Don't know about NZ

The odds for SA have probably gone up markedly with the conditions we are having and will have for the match this weekend.
All week it has rained and has been windy.
Ozzie trained in conditions where basically the rain was sideways as often happens in Wellington.

This will serve to negate the pace Oz want to play the game and will add to their handling and accuracy woes.

Oz reliance on their pack and Pocock in particular can't be understated now...SA look to be in with a grin if this continues.

My moneys on SA to make the final, now that carter has gone NZ have lost that edge once the heat is turned up. think back to 2007 once Carter was off injured, headless chickens.

Possibly Bath, but how much reliance does there have to be on one match in 2007. I mean is that it? It all comes down to the one match in 2007 and everything else thats happened since is less relevant.

I mean...Please...blinkers off and have an original thought perhaps...

The important thing for NZ is whoever Henry selects as his no 10, the guy must not try to be Dan carter and hence make play the way he can, if someone like slade tries to be dan carter it won't work.

I just think the whole focus on Carter is largely irrelevant. We have many world class players in the team, possibly more than any other team, a very strong tight 5, the best backrow and centres and a back 3 bettered only probably by Oz.

To be honest this emphasis on Carters absence could see teams being run over if theyre not careful.

Nz aren't the same without Carter the tri nations games showed that, It's easy to forget how good Carter is with all the other big names around him.

Carter makes it easy for others to look better than they are.

NZ won't win the RWC without him, will they call up Donald?

Ok then lets hope everyone thinks like that then wonders what just ran them over.

I mean Carter himself actually makes Woodcock, McCaw, Kaino, Read, Nonu, Smith, Kahui, Dagg the players they are.

Fair enough...good call. I'm happy with that.

Taylorman wrote:
I mean Carter himself actually makes Woodcock, McCaw, Kaino, Read, Nonu, Smith, Kahui, Dagg the players they are.

I think Dan Parks could make that lot look good .

Taylorman I sense you're looking for a fight, sorry to disappoint you but these are just my opinions.

True NZ are full of quality players around the park and they'll always be in the game but No10 is a position so critical to any team it can take time for a player to settle in, Slade is an ok player but his not used to playing in knockout rugby at this level, he hasn't played many games at this level.

Argentina won't be a push over but NZ will win comfortably but against SA or Aus they will be worried as would any team who has just lost their 1st choice 10.

No I just find the dwelling on the Carter thing interesting.

10 is a critical position but that doesnt seem to be an issue for all 4 NH teams that have qualified none of whom can actually settle 100% on who their 10 is.

For Wales there are Hook, Priestland and can't recall the other. For Ireland there are ROG and Sexton and for England there are Wilko and Flood. France have moved Parra in there.

If the position is so critical why isnt there a clear selection policy in the north.

ROG has just been appointed over Sexton I believe. Just seems a bit weird all this chopping and changing at 10. Its been forced on us so we have to deal with it but as a rule for NZ, Oz and SA their 10's were sorted long ago.

Odd...Don't you think the not being able to settle on a 10 is also a problem?

Taylorman wrote:No I just find the dwelling on the Carter thing interesting.

I agree it is interesting!

As for the NH No10 selections I don't think it helps any of them to be honest, but it also has some positives, NH teams more often than not need to hang on at the end or chase a game therefore the Sexton/O'Gara, Wilko/Flood or Hook /Jones works for those teams, If NZ where hanging on with 10mins to go they wouldn't bring on Slade for Carter would they.

Well.. In the past they might have. They brought on donald for carter when they were more than hanging on and he still managed to fluff it. So i guess weve learned from that.
I guess my point is having no carter means the others cant rely on that stability at 10 and will make up for it.
In 2007 carter then evans came off. This time we have time to prepare for his absence.

There was me thinking when Carter was gone we'd stop hearing the chorus of "Yeah, but what will NZ do if Carter gets injured".

Slade may not be in the same league as Carter, but he's definitely in the same league as Sexton, O'Gara, Wilkinson, Flood or whichever guy France are playing out of position this week.

Sexton, O'Gara, Wilkinson, Flood have all played in BIG games WC finals and HC Finals, Slade has not!

That is a BIG weakness.

One day Slade might be in the same league as these guys, but not yet and he has a long way to go.

Wilkinson has poorer kick stats for the competition than Slade has.

Slade has already scored as many RWC tries as Wilkinson ever did. Slade is out-scoring him with fewer starts.

Slade is a better defender than O'Gara, more of a running thret than Sexton.

He's all class, and when your team is standing around under the posts looking desperate, you'll come to know it is true.

Jog on, WUMs.

Its not a wum these guys have winners medals in knockout competitions, Slade hasn't yet!

Pressure does funny things to people Sexton. O'Gara and Wilkinson have a proven record in big games whilst Flood has played in a RWC final.

Slade could crack if he does then NZ could be in trouble even with all the other big names on the pitch who play well when they're flying, but against SA with 4mins to go and needing a score???

I'm not to sure.

But if you don't agree or don't want to even think about it then call me a Wum if it makes you feel better.

Not sure why anyone is being smug about Carter. NZ are still at least two tries better than any of the NH teams even without him.

Wilkinson has experience and he's still playing poorly. Flood is out of form.

ROG is good at what he does but is still pretty limited. Sexton is a much better option for Ireland. Not sure why they don't just stick with him.

Priestland, like Sexton has a good all round game and seems to be pretty well fixed in there now. Hook will only play 10 now if he gets injured. Jones has probably had his day.

Haven't seen enough of Slade to judge but I know that whenever NZ bring in a young player he is going to be world class. Anyone replacing Carter is going to look a poor replacement in comparison. In a way this might work to NZ favour by unifying them more as a team. I most certainly wouldn't want to be playing a NZ side with a point to prove

Nz is still going to win, all this debate is just the pre amble to when I end with the last word.

"I told you so"

You guys are obsessed with little trinkets aren't you?

Oohhh a medal! Wow he must be great if he's been involved in a team comprising mostly past it southern hemisphere mercentaries and won some two-bit northern club competition!

O'Gara's never been in a team that's beaten the ABs, neither has Sexton, or Flood. No one is frightened of facing the has-been (never-was?) ball rotating Wilkinson who can't buy a good result from a kick at goal and would need kerosene and a match to set a spark to his imported back line partners.

The combined best of the home unions couldn't beat NZ in 2005 without Carter, and they don't seem to have improved since, so I can't see it happening.

TheGreyGhost wrote:
O'Gara's never been in a team that's beaten the ABs, neither has Sexton, or Flood. No one is frightened of facing the has-been (never-was?) ball rotating Wilkinson who can't buy a good result from a kick at goal and would need kerosene and a match to set a spark to his imported back line partners.

We will see won't we GG.

Pressure does funny things to people as you can see.

Ah, I'm just giving a bit of grief Bath. Should be a great run in to the final from here.

ghost relax, what happened to your diplomacy?

I thought we had an understanding.

These guys are trying to justify reasons to be competitive, you know as well as i do the final is going to be a dissappointment and the semi between OZ/SA and NZ will be the toughest match.

No direspect meant to other teams, but history has shown the only team with a marginal chance of beating the all Blacks at home is France from the NH.

The facts are damning.
France last won in NZ in 2009, and have in total only won 4 matches in NZ
England last won in NZ in 2003, and have in total only won 2 matches in NZ
Wales, Ireland and Scotland has never won in NZ.

New zealand has one serious match and then the title should be theirs.

biltongbek wrote:
New zealand has one serious match and then the title should be theirs.

Thats pretty disrespectful biltong. I'm sure the ozzies will give them a tough game in the SF too ..

you know what I mean, bud.

I can't believe you turned on me so quickly, perhaps I should revisit my thoughts on Ireland vs wales.

I can't remember the phrase Biltong.

But whatever it was, Bath's point, is doing it.

"your comment borders on ignorance"

"your reasoning is ill founded"

There are a few others not so polite.

" when your IQ reaches 50 sell."

" the wheels turning, but your rat is dead"

" You are depriving a village of their idiot"

" If your IQ was 1 higher I would water you"

I agree with Bath

NZ are F*****D without Carter once the heat is turned up.

Oh how I'll laugh

That's the spirit HERSH, there's nothing to make you feel better about the sad state of your own life, than to try to climb on top of the rubble of someone else's dreams and wave your loser flag for the world to see.

Erm, I mean, "your comment borders on ignorance".

That's the spirit.

biltongbek wrote:New zealand has one serious match and then the title should be theirs.

Pretty much the same as every RWC then...

NZ have some world class players outside of Carter and McCaw no doubt, but the difference between them and their counterparts in other teams is much less, however much the Herald hypes them.

Carter and McCaw are the two players who give NZ the obvious edge and with Carter already gone and Argentina likely to target a less-than-fit Richie...

+1

But I wouldn't bother Great Aukster these guys have there own agenda, discussing rugby isn't one.

C'mon Bath, now is not the time to give up the fight.

The Great Aukster wrote:

biltongbek wrote:New zealand has one serious match and then the title should be theirs.

Pretty much the same as every RWC then...

NZ have some world class players outside of Carter and McCaw no doubt, but the difference between them and their counterparts in other teams is much less, however much the Herald hypes them.

Carter and McCaw are the two players who give NZ the obvious edge and with Carter already gone and Argentina likely to target a less-than-fit Richie...

Kieran Read, when fully fit is the best 8 in the world. I'd put him in that same category. NZ looked a bit toothless in direct mode without him.

Nonu is the most threatening IC in the world and...

Actually, no the point is just bordering on ignorance, frankly. NZ have a lot of game breakers and I think many of them are equally as imperious in their positions as DC. The difference with DC is the position itself. Having an advantage in the game management and play making department is more of an advantage than having an advantage in finishing or set piece dominance in one area. IMHO.

NZ are F****d without DC if McCaw goes too they are double F****d

FACT!

TheGreyGhost wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

biltongbek wrote:New zealand has one serious match and then the title should be theirs.

Pretty much the same as every RWC then...

NZ have some world class players outside of Carter and McCaw no doubt, but the difference between them and their counterparts in other teams is much less, however much the Herald hypes them.

Carter and McCaw are the two players who give NZ the obvious edge and with Carter already gone and Argentina likely to target a less-than-fit Richie...

Kieran Read, when fully fit is the best 8 in the world. I'd put him in that same category. NZ looked a bit toothless in direct mode without him.

Nonu is the most threatening IC in the world and...

Actually, no the point is just bordering on ignorance, frankly. NZ have a lot of game breakers and I think many of them are equally as imperious in their positions as DC. The difference with DC is the position itself. Having an advantage in the game management and play making department is more of an advantage than having an advantage in finishing or set piece dominance in one area. IMHO.

Ghost i think the point you are trying to make is that without carter you may have fewer opportunities created to score tries because of his ability to read the game, but with the quality of backs you have fewer opportunities will still be enough to win.

If that is what you are saying I agree.

HERSH wrote:NZ are F****d without DC if McCaw goes too they are double F****d

FACT!

there seems to be an echo in here...in here... in h...in...