Bold prediction!

SA to remain unbeaten at home in four nations (championship). Why? They look like a team who have been released from the duldrums and have now got that killer glint in their eye again. Think I might extend Sky contract to watch - now how do tell the wife?!

Ha ha ha..!

Encourage her to enjoy the game with you.

You are right this four nations will be a great tussle.

When does the 4 nations kick off. Excited to see how the argies get on....

SA will win early because they are like battering ram. But others will quickly find and shut them down. I think SA will finish bottom behind Argentina who can match the one dimension and in better kicking form than wasteful Steyn.

SA should win all their home games to be honest... I don't think its particularly out of their reach. They should be ARG & AUS at home.

NZ will be more difficult but they've won their last 3 out of 4 against them so they have a better than average chance of remaining unbeaten.

Injuries in key positions such as centre, tighthead or lineout captain where cover is particularly low will obviously have significant impacts.

anotherworldofpain

SA to finish below Argentina... in your dreams. That would require Argentina to win more than 1 game... that ain't going to happen... they may sneak a win vs. AUS at home but they won't win away and SA & NZ will easily neutralise ARG strengths.

SA have Burger, Bekker, Vermuleun all due to return come the 4N.... that automatically improves their pack no end... think ENG have had a tough time recently???? Imagine what their pack will be with 30kg of extra muscle, who are fitter, quicker and better than those they are replacing and with Schalk, a player who has better loose play than Bismarck.

Don't bite FA, he knoweth not what he sayeth.

After the last two weekends, despite the proof he still holds on to the cliche of one dimensional.

Come the 4Ns expect ALL the SH sides to be firing not just the Boks,ALWAYS expect the Boks to win at home.Depending on the venue the AllBlacks may win
Home and away against you.Was amazed they actually have a 77% win stat AWAY in the Pro Era.With the Super series still to be finished talking about players returning may be premature more injuries are as likely too.THE deciding factor maybe that the ABs last two matches are at home. I expect them to lose
there away matches that is the norm.Chuffed if they don`t whoever thought the Boks could`nt score tries not I. It was a certain Bok Moderator who`s name begins with B who was paranoid about that.Can they replicate it against decent defences or are they just flat track bullies?For all there valor Ireland still only managed two tries.Morne Steyn will be back on blob soon all Great kickers have shallow periods and he`s a points machine.

fa0019 wrote:
NZ will be more difficult but they've won their last 3 out of 4 against them

A little selective methinks.. one was last year when we chose not to send 9 starters.
The other two were 2009 when it is hardly relevant- rules and players largely changed since.

Though...for other reasons...I think they'll be stronger at home..possibly unbeatable. I dont think the current methodology will be enough to win the 4N as its an upgrade with plastic flashy lights with a new driver version of the last 3 years but then I'm also a little suspect about Hansen as well.

Oz are and will again be a mixed bag, capable of anything as theyve already showed. Argentina wont handle the away matches in the first year well at all. They have never played anything as intense as this- ever, including the World cup so they will struggle badly.

Well hopefully no team will sacrafice tests again in the four nations.

lol SA to come 4th behind argies

emack2 wrote:Come the 4Ns expect ALL the SH sides to be firing not just the Boks,ALWAYS expect the Boks to win at home.Depending on the venue the AllBlacks may win
Home and away against you.Was amazed they actually have a 77% win stat AWAY in the Pro Era.With the Super series still to be finished talking about players returning may be premature more injuries are as likely too.THE deciding factor maybe that the ABs last two matches are at home. I expect them to lose
there away matches that is the norm.Chuffed if they don`t whoever thought the Boks could`nt score tries not I. It was a certain Bok Moderator who`s name begins with B who was paranoid about that.Can they replicate it against decent defences or are they just flat track bullies?For all there valor Ireland still only managed two tries.Morne Steyn will be back on blob soon all Great kickers have shallow periods and he`s a points machine.

Well I had reason to worry about how Meyer wants to play. I still have concerns, you don't dominate a team for one half and then bring on replacements that has been proven to be not up to standard and give away all the advantage.

I understand with Coenie being injured he had little choice, but is has once again proven we don't have quality tight head props. It has also proven we miss Burger, Smith, Vermeulen, Bekker and Deysel.

It has also proven that we shouldn't mess with our back line combinations to accommodate Wynand Olivier.

The players that has shown they should be in the mix is.

Beast, Bismarck, Adriaan Strauss, Jannie, Flip v d Merwe, Juandre Kruger, Eben Etzebeth, Willem Alberts, Hougaard, Pienaar, M Steyn, F Steyn, J de Villiers, JP Pietersen, Habana and Lambie.

Marcell Coetzee, Spies and Daniel are still 50/50.

We need to add the injured players Coenie Oosthuizen, Burger, Smith, Vermeulen, Bekker, Deysel and Goosen.

Mvovo didn't get any chances yet, so undecided.

If I were Meyer I would do the unthinkable and test Spies at center.

Aplon should be the one small guy that must come in as an impact sub.

Our weaknesses at this point is another midfielder, a full back and a tight head.

biltongbek wrote:Don't bite FA, he knoweth not what he sayeth.

After the last two weekends, despite the proof he still holds on to the cliche of one dimensional.

Argentina get as far as SA in the RWC and NZ and Aus more far. So I think SA/Arg will be race for bottom place. Also by IRB rank is lowest two team. I think will be some shock about Argentina do better because is "X Factor" and new kind of style and destination and will make a problem for some team. Best evidence is on lowest team to fall over and is SA this time. Just some facts and argument by reason for you. I knoweth whatith am sayething.

Yoda wrote:SA to remain unbeaten at home in four nations (championship). Why? They look like a team who have been released from the duldrums and have now got that killer glint in their eye again. Think I might extend Sky contract to watch - now how do tell the wife?!

YODA. You were wrong!

Someone else was right about SA/ARG coming last and second last though.

Even Meyer and Biltong came to agree with my point that SA were one-dimensional too.

This thread show the amazing leap forward in AWOP's English, he should be applauded! *Cough*GreyGhost*Cough*

anotherworldofpain wrote:

Yoda wrote:SA to remain unbeaten at home in four nations (championship). Why? They look like a team who have been released from the duldrums and have now got that killer glint in their eye again. Think I might extend Sky contract to watch - now how do tell the wife?!

YODA. You were wrong!

Someone else was right about SA/ARG coming last and second last though.

Even Meyer and Biltong came to agree with my point that SA were one-dimensional too.

You seriously don't get it. I have never disputed our attack needs more flair and variation. Go back as far as 2009 on old 606 when I started posting on the internet, and read my posts then.

On occassion I tried to show statistical data that everyone kicks. Only the blind in SA (mainly Morne Steyn supporters) still argue that there is nothing wrong with our attack.

Meh, I'm not convinced Biltong. We seem to see different games!

Of course we do, you see it from your elevated position as a biased observer with a controversial opinion and I see it from another perspective, mostly being objective.

You thrive on controversy, I thrive on objective debate.

Simple really.

I just respect the ability to change an opinion and admit that the evidence was compelling and that the statistics might have been misused or misinterpreted. It's scientific in my mind and truely objective. Attempting to reinterpret or project semantics on to an old debate in an attempt to make contradictory opinion appear consistent dogmatics is a primary frustration of mine.

I just respect the ability to change an opinion and admit that the evidence was compelling and that the statistics might have been misused or misinterpreted. It's scientific in my mind and truely objective

You seldom need evidence of any sort to make a statement. You often use misguided perceptions to fuel an argument intended on creating controversy or attempting to entice a contradictory response. Depending on the ludicrousy of some of your statements, sometimes they are so ridiculous that I refrain from responding purely out of the most sincere empathy.

Attempting to reinterpret or project semantics on to an old debate in an attempt to make contradictory opinion appear consistent dogmatics is a primary frustration of mine

I very much doubt whether contradictory opinion causes anything but euphoria in your case, often percieved semantics are in fact not semantics but merely lateral thinking, projected from outside the box in an attempt to clear the clouds of an often muddled or clouded opinion.

FIGHT!

Biltong wrote:

I just respect the ability to change an opinion and admit that the evidence was compelling and that the statistics might have been misused or misinterpreted. It's scientific in my mind and truely objective

You seldom need evidence of any sort to make a statement. You often use misguided perceptions to fuel an argument intended on creating controversy or attempting to entice a contradictory response. Depending on the ludicrousy of some of your statements, sometimes they are so ridiculous that I refrain from responding purely out of the most sincere empathy.

Attempting to reinterpret or project semantics on to an old debate in an attempt to make contradictory opinion appear consistent dogmatics is a primary frustration of mine

I very much doubt whether contradictory opinion causes anything but euphoria in your case, often percieved semantics are in fact not semantics but merely lateral thinking, projected from outside the box in an attempt to clear the clouds of an often muddled or clouded opinion.

Is ludicrousy a word? I believe it's ludicrousness.

You got the jest of it, didn't you?

But thanks for going over my post with a fine toothcomb and a dictionary. Anything that improves my second language is welcomed.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

Biltong wrote:

I just respect the ability to change an opinion and admit that the evidence was compelling and that the statistics might have been misused or misinterpreted. It's scientific in my mind and truely objective

You seldom need evidence of any sort to make a statement. You often use misguided perceptions to fuel an argument intended on creating controversy or attempting to entice a contradictory response. Depending on the ludicrousy of some of your statements, sometimes they are so ridiculous that I refrain from responding purely out of the most sincere empathy.

Attempting to reinterpret or project semantics on to an old debate in an attempt to make contradictory opinion appear consistent dogmatics is a primary frustration of mine

I very much doubt whether contradictory opinion causes anything but euphoria in your case, often percieved semantics are in fact not semantics but merely lateral thinking, projected from outside the box in an attempt to clear the clouds of an often muddled or clouded opinion.

Is ludicrousy a word? I believe it's ludicrousness.

Your english is truely remarkable.

and might i say a fantastic response. you have just blown Biltong out of the water with that one.

Bravo

Sorry goodintightspaces, but that was rather sharp.

Just making sure I understand what point you are making before I respond.

"often percieved semantics are in fact not semantics but merely lateral thinking"

I don't understand this point, can you confirm what you are talking about? You are saying your lateral thinking has no meaning?

Ok, what you percieve as semantics are only semantics in your opinion due to the fact that you refuse to accept it a an alternative method of thinking.

Lateral thinking is to look at an object or situation from a different perspective to enlighten those who only have one view.

In other words, if you or anyone for that matter are intent on looking at a situation from only one perspective, I merely apply an alternative thought process.

Very metaphysical of you Biltong. But I've lost what this has to do with rugby, or specifically whether or not the OP's bold prediction was right or wrong.

Are you saying that if I apply lateral thinking I can see a perspective where SA and ARG didn't finish last and second to last? and SA did not embrace a new approach to their rugby mid-tournament signalling an about face after years of sticking to a limited, predictable and increasingly ineffective plan? Are you saying there wasn't great frustration with the persistence of selection of the mis-firing Steyn? or his inability to get the backline moving? Are you saying their wasn't relief and optimism at the introduction of Goosen?

Is all this arts student double speak merely a way of deflecting from the incontrovertible and unavoidable reality?

It's a shame to be in this position, because I was greatly encouraged by what is going on for SA and am generally optimistic if they go through the transitional pain then the old green caterpillar can emerge as a much more interesting animal to watch.

OK, let's start at the beginning. I'll do this in bite size chunks.

Is all this arts student double speak merely a way of deflecting from the incontrovertible and unavoidable reality?

I'll refer you to you post made at 11h30. I merely reciprocated.

Are you saying that if I apply lateral thinking I can see a perspective where SA and ARG didn't finish last and second to last

Lateral thinking doesn't apply to facts. It is factual that we came second last, or third, whichever way you prefer to term it. Lateral thinking applies to debating opinion or perception. There is no perception we came third, it is fact.

and SA did not embrace a new approach to their rugby mid-tournament signalling an about face after years of sticking to a limited, predictable and increasingly ineffective plan?

This is opinion and can be debated along many different opinions and perspectives. Yes, when Meyer selected Goosen, the attack showed more variance and Goosen got the backline away on the front foot as he stood and attacked the gainline much flatter. Yet Meyer denies that the game plan has changed, his reasoning was that his players have carte blanche to play the situation and Goosen obviously made a difference.

Are you saying there wasn't great frustration with the persistence of selection of the mis-firing Steyn?

I beleive I have exhibited my frustration in regards to steyn's limited ability more than enough times to suggest there has been a growing frustration amongst many (excluding the Steyn supporters) supporters for some time, I have never denied that.

Are you saying their wasn't relief and optimism at the introduction of Goosen?

Once again, where do you get the idea that there wasn't optimism and relief?

It's a shame to be in this position, because I was greatly encouraged by what is going on for SA and am generally optimistic if they go through the transitional pain then the old green caterpillar can emerge as a much more interesting animal to watch

Sadly your posting style does not convince me that you are in any way excited or encouraged to see a different style of rugby from South Africa.

The reality is you choose to take on board perceptions of what has been said previously without considering whether it is in fact the truth. I refer you to your post at 11h37 last night, which instigated my response this morning.

Biltong! Why so grumpy today? I was merely reflecting that the OP was wrong on his "bold prediction" but my prediction was very accurate in fact, and for a lot of the reasons I predictor come true, so I was some bit proud and some bit bored. I was only trying to comment that you were positive about the new multi-faceted attack of SA and move away from the one-dimensional attack, so I apologise if some semantics were lost in translation to your lateral thinking.

I actually made the posting at 10h37 last night, but we must be in different time zones!

And there goes the english.

Sadly your posting style does not convince me that you are in any way excited or encouraged to see a different style of rugby from South Africa.

There is a misunderstanding there. I have been emploring SA to turn the corner and switch off the up-and-under since NZ diffused it with tandem full backs.

What I merely said was SA fans should temper the relief at Meyer finally being forced to move on with acceptance that you can't simply switch from one style to another by selecting a young combinator and expecting them to go out a win every game.

My feeling was their was far too much optimism before the NZ game, some were even predicting after the Australia win that Pumas would beat NZ as well as SA and SA would win the RC!

To me it was obvious that NZ have more time adopting this try-scoring style and that SA will take some time to catch up. Of course they have the players and it is good for rugby as you can see is my believe from my postings on the AIs thread yesterday.

This isn't at all to be interpreted as lack of excitement and encouragement to SA for their new style. Of course switching styles take some time. Look at Scotland! They took a lot of bad results as they moved from the defensive conservative damage limitation, and this year managed to beat Australia, in Australia!!! So if SA keep persisting with it I'm sure it will turn out well.

I went on to superbru, the prediction website to see what percentage of South African fans predicted what outcome.

Total number of predictions.

37.3% predicted New Zealand will win.

45.83% predicted a draw or win for SA by 7 or less.

16.87% predicted a win by more than 7 points.

that tells me even with fans being biased towards their own team, the Springbok supporters were realistic for the most part.

37.3% of them at least. Not an overwhelming statistical majority.

Perhaps the rest were thinking outside the box.

SA just missed the official rebuilding date by a month or two, that's all. So they're behind England but at last on their way...with the new way.

So that's two sides up and running towards 2015. I wonder who'll be next.

I'm not quite sure why you're bragging AWOP. Unless I'm mistaken, your prediction was...

anotherworldofpain wrote: I think SA will finish bottom behind Argentina

...which, was in fact, wrong.

As it was, if Australia had lost its last game to Argentina in Rosario without a losing bonus point (which, given the injury toll, wasn't totally out of the question), we would have come last.

No worries FC, AWOP isn't one that allows truth to spoil a good argument.

I think Lionel Hutz says it best...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htVkGx4_GqA

Quite.

Full Credit wrote:I'm not quite sure why you're bragging AWOP. Unless I'm mistaken, your prediction was...

anotherworldofpain wrote: I think SA will finish bottom behind Argentina

...which, was in fact, wrong.

As it was, if Australia had lost its last game to Argentina in Rosario without a losing bonus point (which, given the injury toll, wasn't totally out of the question), we would have come last.

No no, you need to follow the RC Prediction thread, which subsequently followed that assertion. There I was merely talking about the battle of the bottom two which you have quoted quite out of context. Later, I added in the draw and it actually put SA ahead.

I also predicted Argentina would lose badly in Rosario, which was quite easy to guess if you apply some level of reasoning. So I don't think Aus finishing second was in any doubt.

So I need to wade through another lengthy thread to find something you allegedly said so as to prove you right in this thread? That sounds more like something you should do. Also, there's nothing out of context in what I've quoted, you said that on this thread which puts it squarely in context.

When you consider that pretty much everyone thought Argentina would come last and NZ come first then you were really only left with a 50/50 guess as to who the bottom 2 would be. Since Aus had won something like 6 from 7 against SA recently then it becomes an even less impressive prediction.

Biltong wrote:

I just respect the ability to change an opinion and admit that the evidence was compelling and that the statistics might have been misused or misinterpreted. It's scientific in my mind and truely objective

You seldom need evidence of any sort to make a statement. You often use misguided perceptions to fuel an argument intended on creating controversy or attempting to entice a contradictory response. Depending on the ludicrousy of some of your statements, sometimes they are so ridiculous that I refrain from responding purely out of the most sincere empathy.

Attempting to reinterpret or project semantics on to an old debate in an attempt to make contradictory opinion appear consistent dogmatics is a primary frustration of mine

I very much doubt whether contradictory opinion causes anything but euphoria in your case, often percieved semantics are in fact not semantics but merely lateral thinking, projected from outside the box in an attempt to clear the clouds of an often muddled or clouded opinion.

clearly Biltong/AWOP and GG are the same perosn and now they are talking to each other....btw....this question is directed at AWOP....can you tell me what langugae course you took because I have never ever seen anyone learn it so quickly and hope to do the same with my Spanish

Yes, I can. I learn English before already, then I did Rosetta Stone at home to remind myself and then I went to the Central English School in Tottenham Court Road for one to one course that ran for 6 months, then I did business language specialist courses and also I work and live with native speakers and spend all of my life discussing business topics via email and rugby on 606v2! Finally I did a language therapy hynosis course that helps you "forget" your existing grammar when you are speaking and thinking in English. So as you can see it is fully immersive and you can achieve a lot if you put your mind to it!

If you are learning Spanish (which is my mind is not so difficult from English although I am not an expert!) then I recommend living there and speaking Spanish every day and not thinking or corresponding in your native tongue.

To be honest when I am very tired or a bit drunk my English grammar still slips back quite quickly, and especially if I have been speaking or working in another language at the same time! I find switching and keeping my grammar perfect is very hard work and makes my brain hurt.

anotherworldofpain,

What's your native language?

The one from his native country.

AWOP

When the subject is rugby, you may find it more helpful to speak and think in Kiwi, rather than English.

aucklandlaurie wrote: AWOP

When the subject is rugby, you may find it more helpful to speak and think in Kiwi, rather than English.

bravo.....not bad for a kiwi

aucklandlaurie wrote: AWOP

When the subject is rugby, you may find it more helpful to speak and think in Kiwi, rather than English.

SecretFly wrote:The one from his native country.

Ask a silly question...

I've tried coaxing him into game of charades to find out the actual name but charades are a pretty tough thing to do in an online typing forum.

First syllabel...sounds like..........................???