Interesting analogy...2007 AB/ 2011 SA parallels

Much of our comments since the WC final have echoed this:

http://www.allblacks.com/news/18332/Boks-end-year-with-uncanny-resemblance-to-2007-All-Blacks

Agree in that the core acceptance by team management to accept things and move on contributed to the results we saw this year.

For fans though, its a different story, both were extremely hard to take and SA's 2011 demise reopened the same wounds that NZ fans went through in 07 and were painted on these boards for a while-ie NZers felt vindicated for the lack of empathy by others at the time, the constant 24 year, choking thing rammed down our throats not being an easy thing to go through when we felt we 'knew' we should have won it.

But the key point here is although the fans managed to throw their toys out of the cot, those involved with the NZ team didnt- largely they didnt complain when they had every right to, took it on the chin- almost unbelievably in the eyes of NZ fans, got on with it and that is now the key learning for SA. Smit and co going on about the ref immediately after the match to Kiwi's suggests that sterner stuff is needed in this game if you are going to make it through both the good and the bad times.

The NZ management is in a slightly better position to take the 'holier than thou' approach in the knowledge that the AB's usually assume the top position more easily, and can almost regard the loss as a 'hiccup'. Regardless, leadership, character, resolve and most of all, swiftt action, is still what is needed here and to date it has been lacking- no doubt that will come- lets just hope its sooner than later, and its good to see Matfield at least voicing his views on the ways forward- regardless of whether he's right or wrong.

The writer is not entirely objective with this piece.

firstly "flying springboks" - how the hell did he think Brussow got injured?

We have all agreed that Sa should have won in spite of the referee, but we also seeked acknowledgement for the role the referee played in the loss.

It is also a very simplsitic manner in which he attempts to compare the NZ scenario with that of South Africa.

Graham Henry had a very successful period prior to the world cup and even though controversially re-appointed after 2007, had credible reasons to remain. where as PDV has very few reasons to remian. His stint as coach was marred by many controversies whixh included wanting to get rid of his assitant coaches, his inability to understand the correct timing of subsititutes, etc etc.

Looking at why SARU has not yet launched an investigation has absolutely nothing to do with recovering from a loss to move forward, the political climate is interfering with selecting the best coahing staff and management, as is the election of competent administrators, marred by politics and nepotism which causes more infighting and backstabbing than an episode of Desperate housewives.

In my humble South African opinion the writer is somewhat clueless and should have ended his article with the manner in which SA and NZ were eliminated was similar, and then posted a few photo's of semi naked cheerleaders to lighten the mood.

Yeah its all designed to stir the pot Biltong.

We're completely naive to the SA scene and look at it purely from a linear, rugby only perspective. That's cos for us it is as simple as that. Alright to preach it from where we sit I know. Perhaps we need to more about what 'politics' it is that is inteferring as without that its just a word.

I mean is there a brigade that believes SA rugby should be the tormented soul it is, that it shouldnt win tests it should, or that there isn't a place for the game? Can agenda's not be worked with and simplified for the better good or is the mere presence of them enough for some people?

Cheerleaders is a good idea too

I have no read the link ,BUT in many ways the Boks post2011,and All Blacks Post 2007 have several parallels.
Both went out a quarter final stages of a RWC,many blamed the referee for the defeats in each case.[Rightly or Wrongly]
Both sides will/were forced to rebuild post RWC due the loss of key players
to retirement going North etc.
Indeed the All Blacks lost the best part of there squad post 2007,the Hurricanes/Crusaders S15 final was used as a NZ test trial.The squad was
then almost rebuilt seamlessly.
RWC knee jerk reactions has always been sack the coaches,especially in NZ
.Personally I think had not Robbie Deans been besmirched by being a member of losing 2003 RWC team coaches.
HE would have been named Head Coach,PDV inherited most of the RWC winning players.
Made the mistake of picking NH based players in 2008,unfamiliar with the trialled new laws.
In 2009 at least in the early part his side was very successful,but tapered off as injuries took there toll.
If there was a problem with Bok Rugby ,it was the failure to adapt better to the law interpratations of 2010 onwards.
Plus a failure to see some of his best players were over the hill and should have been replaced.
2015 is a long way away,neither the All Blacks or the Boks will be the same side come then.
Boks have always had the players,with the right selection,and when you consider for example.
All Blacks,Crockett,the Franks Brothers,Hika Elliott,Sam Whitelock,Boric,Kaino,Read ,and probably Matt Todd is likely to be the Pack,have a dozen contenders at 10,including Slade,Cruden, Anscombe,Barrett, Sopanga,a new young Scrum Half,wings coming out of there ears,Dagg at Full Back,Fruen,plus the last 3 years JWC squad bubbling under.Will hardy be weaker,and the 30 somethings may still be in contention in some positions.
At my age I may not live to see another RWC ,one day at a time,BUT I hope to see the All Blacks win the first 4Ns,and defend the RWC next year with minimal losses.
THE hardest thing in Rugby is NOT winning a RWC,BUT defending it few have done that with any success.

Hey Gents,
I don't get the article. For me no real parallel between the ABs in 2007 and the Boks in 2011. Only the barest coincidence. So it seems to be an article making hay out of nothing.

I do have a question though. Why does it seem that after each RWC the major nations who don't win always have teams investigate the losing performance as if the fate of the free world is at stake? Seems MI6, CIA, KGB are all employed in England's post tournament review. How about using civilians and simple Rugby folk?

No one has defended it Alan. Australia came the closest with 91 and 99.

I tend to agree with Biltong that other than the RWC result and the exodus of players, there isn´t much else to compare between the two. It´s not like the Boks need added motivation to beat the ABs and Ted was a good bet to retain as coach. The likelihood of a new coach is essentially as good as a World Cup finding: PDV was inept and the ref was a useless piece of possum.

THE nearest was the 1987 side,the AllBlacks defeated ALL the RWC winners first up post RWC.The 1987 side went nearly 4 years un beaten.

NZ had a full post tournament review doc. We do it regardless of the results to go into the next planning phase.
Unfortunately SA fans are stuck with the horrible situation of supporting the 15 that go onto the field regardless of how they got there and whether they should even be there.
We shouldnt keep dwelling on it but for me its frustrating knowing that we really never get the best from the boks in terms of team selection and preparation.
The team we face has usually got there by hook or by crook and has already jumped through hoops just to get onto the field. I almost feel robbed whenever we win.
I keep saying it in the hope that maybe someone might read it and nudge the winds of change that little bit more as nothing more i would like better than is to face a well drilled, selected prepared and coached bok side.
I just dont think we have for a long long time.

Maybe the one thing to come out of this with both the BOK's and NZ blaming the REF for their loss( NZ2007) and the (BOK2011) is the use of the TMO more often. Should the TMO have the right to tell the referee (that was a forward pass, their are hands in the ruck)etc etc.

If you look at 2007 and NZ, yes they was good enough to win but they did not, and before the tournament they was winning just about every game they played.

In 2011 Yes the BOK was good enough to win but the did not win, maybe it was complcency i dont know, but since 2007 they have won some of the time but not all of the time.

I still have a theory that every referee wanted NZ to win at home and did not punish them at the break down like they punished other teams.

I could be a bit paranoid about that though.

Taylorman wrote:NZ had a full post tournament review doc. We do it regardless of the results to go into the next planning phase.
Unfortunately SA fans are stuck with the horrible situation of supporting the 15 that go onto the field regardless of how they got there and whether they should even be there.
We shouldnt keep dwelling on it but for me its frustrating knowing that we really never get the best from the boks in terms of team selection and preparation.
The team we face has usually got there by hook or by crook and has already jumped through hoops just to get onto the field. I almost feel robbed whenever we win.
I keep saying it in the hope that maybe someone might read it and nudge the winds of change that little bit more as nothing more i would like better than is to face a well drilled, selected prepared and coached bok side.
I just dont think we have for a long long time.

Taylorman you have summed it up perfectly here, perhaps you can then imagine how much we crave for a situation even if it is just for a few years where we can have all the required ingredients necessary o show the world our real potential.

Would it not be fantastic to get a four year period where we have the best coach, and the best players irrespective of who they are to compete against the worlds best without having to realise and support players although decent, but not the best in the country.

Yeah its a shame alright. It amazes me theyre competitive at the level at all. Hats off to the players that do front then.

There must be that huge intangible connection between the players, their ever so loyal fans and the bok legacy that continues to hold the ship together despite the absolute rubbish going on around it all.

Obviously the changes are going to be slow and perversely the more the boks keep winning under their own steam the less likely the change mongers will be active which is why i thought a quarter exit would be good for them in the long run.

So next year we'll just take them as we get them and hope for the best i suppose. Shame its gotta be that way. I realise its not all doom and gloom as the teams probably at 70% of what it could be.

Taylorman and Biltong,all the best for 2012 to you.Boks have ALWAYS been formidable at home.
In RWC year,neither team now worry about 3Ns[4Ns],titles.
BUT in normal years,BOKS are always formidable at home,recent history is only 6-5 wins to the AB`s.

You too alan. I think were about to turn a new corner in the top 3 arena.
With argie in the 4 N wins against them wont count for all 3 and they will have the best chance to narrow the gap.

SA for me are still the most interesting. They will have two main reasons to respond. One is the loss of the wc title giving them the collective motivation they need to perform. The other is the opportunities created via the departing of the coach and key players.
For me a dangerous cocktail and the potential for a rennaisance in SA rugby is on the rise.
The Lambies (who i believe is in the same class as Ozs Oconnor) hougards etc of this time represent those ready to drive the changes on the field.
They simply have not received the support as potential leading players and have been mucked about.

It amazes me that so many people come out with,refs favour the All Blacks,especially at home.
McCaw should always be in the Bin,etc,etc,etc.ALL Refs in a RWC tend to give 50.50 decisions to the Home side.
IRB fixed it so the All Blacks won,because they were the Home Nation etc.
The Fact they have a 81% win record since the First RWC,have won more RWC matches than any one else.have an 86% record since 2003 under GH and 76% since 1903.
Of course means EVERY REF who has officiated since 1903 was bent,etc.
IF you open up the other eye,ignore the Commentators,and rewatch the Final.
THEN you will see the REF,got most decisions right,that he missed discretions by both sides .
The goal kicking by both sides was abysmal,and very few try scoring chances created.
It was a cracking final full of tension,the TMO is going to get extended use in future.
Some Laws are going to be adapted viz,Scrum,Maul.Breakdown,and Offside.
When it comes down to it the All Blacks won every match,the same as every previous winner that`s as it should be.