Springboks the slow decline.

First topic message reminder :

The Springbok gameplan has been under scrutiny and criticism from the world for a long time, yet in spite of those criticisms South Africa as remained a top three nation during this time. The only time South Africa fell out of the top three was during the years 2000 – 2003, in a time where first SARU appointed a businessman by the name of Harry Viljoen and then the infamous Rudolph Streauli.

I decided to have a look at what the impact was on the Springbok performances from the time Kitch Christie was appointed against the traditional top five nations: Obviously as SA is one of them, the comparison will be with England, Australia, France and New Zealand.

Firstly let me provide the total statistics compared over the whole period.

South Africa have played 119 test matches against the other top 5 nations. Winning 53 and drawing 2, for a win percentage of 45%. Consider that 84 of those test matches have been played against their Tri Nation rivals, then 45% is still not really very good.

But, included in those statistics were the Dark Period in SA rugby when Harry Viljoen and Rudolph Strauli between them made a mockery of Springbok tradition and performances winning only 3 matches and drawing 1 out of 19 tests against these opponents.

If you exclude those matches for the sake of argument, then the stats read 100 tests played, 50 wins and 1 draw for a 50.5% win ratio. Of those 72 matches were against their tri Nation opponents.

I would argue that the bare minimum would be 50%, which doesn’t leave much room for ascendancy over the collective.

Statistics per nation overall.
FRA – 16 tests at 54%
ENG- 19 tests at 63%
OZ – 43 tests at 45%
NZ – 41 tests at 34%

Statistics per nation excluding the Dark Years.
FRA – 12 tests at 63%
ENG –16 tests at 75%
OZ – 38 tests at 45%
NZ – 34 tests at 41%

Kitch Christie 1994-1996
Performance against top 5 nations is 4/4 – 100%

Andre Markgraaf 1996
Performance against top 5 nations is 4/9 – 44%

Carel du Plessis 1997
Performance against top 5 nations is 1/4 – 25%

Nick Mallet 1997-2000
Performance against top 5 nations is 14/24 – 58%

Harry Viljoen and Rudolph Streauli the Dark Years 2000-2003
Performance against top 5 nations is 3/19 – 16%

Jake White 2004-2007
Performance against top 5 nations is 15/32 – 47%

Pieter de Villiers 2008-2011
Performance against top 5 nations is 12/27 – 44%

Considering the records of each of these coaches, Nick Mallet over a sustained period of time has proven to be consistently the most successful coach (other than Kitch Christie) and one only has to go back to the type of rugby South Africa played during that time to realize there was a time where we played the game expansively and some of our most famous victories came during that time.

The last 8 years, first Jake White by building a squad and formulating a game plan and then Pieter de Villiers continuing with the same group of players and the same game plan has proven to show a slow decline in success against the leading nations.

I don’t know how much more I have to prove to show that South Africa’s one dimensional plan is slowly but surely being countered more successfully against their top opponents.

Heyneke Meyer needs little more proof that things need to change, and it is up to him to ensure a focus shift to more players with X-factors and less focus on selecting the safe options.

The downward graph is undisputable

As you know I couldnt agree more biltong. The very gameplan SA thinks it is successful with is also the same stopping it ever getting to no. 1.

As much as some teams have no structured defence SA has no structured attack. It occurs through one offs or as a result of pressure applied by the pack.

The scenario SA will likely find itself in is when it needs two tries to win with ten to go. Kicks are pointless and steyn as the go to man in the backs will again be under pressure to come up with something. Under pressure he invariably dies the wrong thing. Kicks!. Thats cos its all he knows. As you know he did it several times for the bulls.

As a rule the ABs know how the beat the boks. Match them up front and outpace them in the backs. Luckily for SA not many can actually do that. But its a gameplan that will never find itself consistently at no.1. Nor should it. Thats because it doesnt make maximum use of the 15 man game. The average contribution of each back personally in each match falls well behind that of each forward. Thats a gap. And it needs to be filled if SA are ever to be no.1. An Aplon contributions needs to be every bit as important as an alberts contribution. Look at Dagg. He contributes every bit as much as mccaw. In different ways but as a back he knows the forwards are doing their be so the backs can maximise theirs. SA dont think like that. They 'wait' for their turn. Do their best to help the pack win the game if they get a chance. Huge diffetence in the thinking.

Is it mere coincidence that the ABs have the most balanced gameplan on both attack and defence equally and maintain the status at the top.

Its because they maximise the potential of every position on the field.
Not just 8 of them.

Nor should it. Thats because it doesnt make maximum use of the 15 man game. The average contribution of each back personally in each match falls well behind that of each forward. Thats a gap. And it needs to be filled if SA are ever to be no.1.

Exactly, and it all evolves around the 9 and 10 axis.

When I look at Habana, Pietersen, Frans Steyn, Lambie. Those players can all make and impact, Frans with his power runs and offloads and little chips or grubbers, Habana and Pietersen out wide as both looked better than the last four years, and Lambie to run into that line, will create those instinctive moves required.

But for that you need Goosen at ten, he has distributed far more than any flyhalf in SA, even more than Lambie who is slightly behind him, Goosen on attack has shown with a Cheetahs team he can as an individual comete against the best players the SH has to offer.

Hopefully we will only have to wait until the end of the year, in the meantime, I would like to see Lambie given that spot.

Hi,Biltong once when this site was newly formed I did a thesis on Springbok rugby dating back to 1906.I stated that despite the few dips and heights there average was 62% win record from that time.Wikipedia says 62.8 but I calculated it independently.it is simplistic to leave out periods to prove a point.The Boks until 1982 were THE most succesful side .BUT the gradual decline started in 1951-2 when they started playing Balanced rugby that Tour was the High point they were unbeaten at Test Level.1953 they lost there first post war test,1955 they lost 2,to the Lions,1956 they lost 3 to the AllBlacks,1958 lost there first Home series a loss and a draw to France.By 1950 the AllBlacks after mastering the 3-4-1 Scrum with Dr.Danie Cravens help adopted BOK tactics so successfully they were unbeaten except in one series till 1970.The Boks reverted to there traditional power Rugby style in 1960 beating the All Blacks narrowly,a massively impressive UK tour 1960-1,and Lion s tour 1961-2.After 1956 the AllBlacks won all there home series and lost all there away series versus the Boks.1970 the NH coaching overtook that of the SH two Lions wins 1971,and 1974,should have been 1977.Wales golden Age,THE worst AllBlacks decade.Truth is whether you want to admit it or not Boks Power game has been more successful for them than the more balanced game.Stats .don`t lie 62.8% is the average over 107 years and truth to tell at Home except in the 2002 -3 period you have won lots of your Home games versus anyone.

Alan, I accept your thinking.

Problem for me is twofold.

One

I think the game has moved on a lot in the professional era and any "style" of play from yesteryear is only relevant to the traditional strengths of each country. SA big forwards, Australia athletic backs etc.

Two

The relevance of the amateur era to today is only history, when you look at Frances 50 years ago and France today, they are much stronger.

You look at Scotland in the amateur era compared to how professional era has been detrimental to their success due to a lack of resources.

So in my view, we can't look back at history that far bar for the purpose of history only. We need to look at how the game have changed. The facts are all there, we know exactly what needs to be done, we have the players, we just need a coach with big enough cahonies to make the step.

I would mention one thing about the boks up until reintroduction.. they played 64% of their games at home.

Home advantage is very important. In terms of matches pre SA re-introduction here are the % of home games against all matches played

SA 64%
AUS 50%
ENG 50%
NZ 49%
FRA 48%

I do understand that part of this was to do with countries making it difficult for SA to travel from the 60s onwards but still it doesn't take away the viewpoint that if SA had had a more equal home-away ratio, their amateur era record would be less impressive than it was (albeit probably still the best).

And that combined with the usual restrictions on who could actually go to SA...the great johhny smith for example...contributed to the better home record.

Still cant understand how we ever put up with that back then. Told our own players they couldnt go because they werent white. Mind boggling. Stats like that just have to be put into perspective.

How would SA have gone here if white players couldnt travel here?
Ridiculous thought? Well apparently not.

I think its because our own countries were not exactly whiter that white in terms of racial liberalism themselves and some/many in the unions were happy to by-pass "minor" matters to them, ones they may have secretly agreed with.

Also at least in the UK, "non white" players only came about in the mid 80s. Different to NZ, AUS etc but happened to Basil D'Oliveiria in ENG cricket though inn the 60s.

Its depends on how much a difference how much those players would have made. Also SA did prevent all their coloured players from representing.. but that was their choice so its their own fault for denying talent.

Its all forgive and forget now however.... well bar those pesky boere.... those damn dutchman!!! Where is Luke Watson where we need a speech on those guys????

One thing I find humourous is that SA products were banned from sale in foreign markets, SA sportsman were banned from competing on the international scene but all these countries were happy to sell them their own products/cars/weapons/oil etc.

"We're principled enough not to buy your products and assist in generating wealth for your country... but we're happy enough to sell you products of our own so that we can generate more wealth....... oh and my wife loves her new diamond... thanks!"

I guess from the 60s - early 90s Botswana sold an amazing number of diamonds to the world even though it has no mines of itself. Funny that, but lets be honest, they are a welshman's best friend

SA play to their strengths, they have big strong guys who they make the most of, I think there's something in the water there or something! It's very much like an exaggerated version of the English style of playing, go through the forwards and play direct, straight running rugby.

Australia play more rugby league style, because they have excellent backs and poor forwards.

New Zealand just screw everyone because they've got a pretty rounded team, but most teams have their own style, SA have theirs and it works out well for them mostly because they do it well. I'm fairly certain you won't lose to Ireland, or to us in Murrayfield (unfortunately).

I don't think Wales would say Australia have poor forwards. A few years ago maybe but I think any team that is naive enough to think that now will get a shock and in Pocock they have the worlds best 7.

Yes NB Appreciate SA play to their strengths. My issue is is that because theyve never explored outside those strengths?

How can one truly know their strengths if they havnt explored every option?

To me its flawed reasoning. I mean if say Wayne Smith and Graeme Henry went in there for two years and had sole charge of all things attack guarantee SA would have a backline twice as good as it is now, scoring many more tries than they do now, the team thrilling crowds with BOTH its huge power in the forwards and in the backs. Why such an aversion to change. Theyre second now with what theyve got. Do the really think more of the same will result in domination? When easily the biggest area for improvememt by far is in its backline strategy?

AUS have never had less than worldclass backrow players... but they do have a weak front five.

Think about the Scotland match earlier this year, AUS vs IRE at the RWC and how the AUS SR sides have struggled in the tight throughout the year vs. SA & NZ sides.

WAL were very poor upfront... its where they lost the series. They should have dominated, AUS were comfortable for most of the 3 games bar a little period in the 3rd test.
If AUS get parity up front I don't think anyone will beat them, is their a better backline in world rugby then

Genia, Cooper, Ioane, O'Connor, Ashley-Cooper, Taomane & Beale???

I doubt it.

Taylorman wrote:Yes NB Appreciate SA play to their strengths. My issue is is that because theyve never explored outside those strengths?

How can one truly know their strengths if they havnt explored every option?

To me its flawed reasoning. I mean if say Wayne Smith and Graeme Henry went in there for two years and had sole charge of all things attack guarantee SA would have a backline twice as good as it is now, scoring many more tries than they do now, the team thrilling crowds with BOTH its huge power in the forwards and in the backs. Why such an aversion to change. Theyre second now with what theyve got. Do the really think more of the same will result in domination? When easily the biggest area for improvememt by far is in its backline strategy?

I am listening to Naas Botha, Kobus Wiese and Breyten Paulse at the moment, they are struggling to be polite about Morne Steyn's continued inclusion and the lack of vision.

ABlast from the past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN169E6k-uo

Well thats good biltong. Reflects more on meyer than anyone else. Hes saying he'll look to past victories as a way to the future...and guess who was at 10 for most of those.

So a minus against him for not exploring a 10 during the series. Thing is now hes more likely to invest in steyns improvement rather than suck it in and admit hes wrong. A good game for the bulls and meyer will think hes back in the happy books.

Said it earlier this year. Steyn will be in 'for just this next test' and that will go on until everyone demands hes dumped. Thing is how many losses will that, combined with the losses during s transition to a new 10 will it cost SA.

Remember this try taylorman? Look at how Burger and Bekker distribute here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctbcqg3WctI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

biltongbek wrote:[I am listening to Naas Botha, Kobus Wiese and Breyten Paulse at the moment, they are struggling to be polite about Morne Steyn's continued inclusion and the lack of vision.

Would love to have a transcript of how struggling to be polite sounds like...

Maybe I should say diplomatic.

But they are adament SA needs a plan B, and that they need their backline to play

biltongbek wrote:Remember this try taylorman? Look at how Burger and Bekker distribute here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctbcqg3WctI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Yeah that was great. One out of the bag. The talents certainly there alright...largely untapped so to speak...

I don't think they are in decline at all, they have good players coming through and have just won the junior world cup. They'll be set for a number of years to stay at the top having said that the All Blacks pretty much own the no.1 spot, teams who have had it have pretty much just borrowed it for a short time. I remember how particularily bad they were from November 2002 until 2004 then they totally turned it around hammered Ireland and Wales and won the tri nations, never write them off. Especially on winning a series against a pretty good team.

OzT wrote:

biltongbek wrote:[I am listening to Naas Botha, Kobus Wiese and Breyten Paulse at the moment, they are struggling to be polite about Morne Steyn's continued inclusion and the lack of vision.

Would love to have a transcript of how struggling to be polite sounds like...

In Kobus Wiese's case it sounds like: "drawing a match is like kissing your sister"...how do you respond to that Dylan Hartley? (For those who didn't watch the post-match interviews, I'm not implying that Hartley likes to kiss his sister...Kobus included this phrase in his interview with him)

Part of the slow decline of Bok rugby since reintroduction reflects broader themes in SA society like the undermining of meritocracy wherein only the best are selected for any given task. While a 'transformation agenda' has its merits in some spheres of society/economy in SA (esp. given our past) it is simply not compatable with elite sport if you want to remain at the top. If you are playing the best, you must bring your best. THe All Blacks are not going to feel sorry for the boks and go easy on them because of the fact the Boks are trying to contribute to the noble aim of national transformation!

Mr Fishpaste, although I do agree with you, the problem that is staring us in the face unfortunately has nothing to do with our coach's inability to shed the traditions of the past, at some point we need a visionary who will take Springbk rugby into the 21st century, as yet it hasn't happened.

There is a reality that I only picked up the other day.

If you look at the number of SA players playing in the HC, the forwards outnumber the backs by more than 4 to one.

That shows our inherent inability to allow back line players to shine.

If we played running rugby with our backs instead of making them chase a igskin all day long and be tackling machines we would see more natural talent be exposed and that ratio of "exports" would not be 4 forwards per 1 back line player.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:Part of the slow decline of Bok rugby since reintroduction reflects broader themes in SA society like the undermining of meritocracy wherein only the best are selected for any given task. While a 'transformation agenda' has its merits in some spheres of society/economy in SA (esp. given our past) it is simply not compatable with elite sport if you want to remain at the top. If you are playing the best, you must bring your best. THe All Blacks are not going to feel sorry for the boks and go easy on them because of the fact the Boks are trying to contribute to the noble aim of national transformation!

My mind is the impending problem of Springbok is infact reaction to that. Everyone know and admitting PdV just some policitcal appointment even though if you checking the results he not do such a bad job! But my mind is that Meyer now build the team in reactionary manner and try to bring back the past with a team base on ideals of amateur era Springboks with same tactics and basis for combinator!

anotherworldofpain wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:Part of the slow decline of Bok rugby since reintroduction reflects broader themes in SA society like the undermining of meritocracy wherein only the best are selected for any given task. While a 'transformation agenda' has its merits in some spheres of society/economy in SA (esp. given our past) it is simply not compatable with elite sport if you want to remain at the top. If you are playing the best, you must bring your best. THe All Blacks are not going to feel sorry for the boks and go easy on them because of the fact the Boks are trying to contribute to the noble aim of national transformation!

My mind is the impending problem of Springbok is infact reaction to that. Everyone know and admitting PdV just some policitcal appointment even though if you checking the results he not do such a bad job! But my mind is that Meyer now build the team in reactionary manner and try to bring back the past with a team base on ideals of amateur era Springboks with same tactics and basis for combinator!

And you came up with that conclusion even though there are half a team of first choice players not available?

Good on you.

biltongbek wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:Part of the slow decline of Bok rugby since reintroduction reflects broader themes in SA society like the undermining of meritocracy wherein only the best are selected for any given task. While a 'transformation agenda' has its merits in some spheres of society/economy in SA (esp. given our past) it is simply not compatable with elite sport if you want to remain at the top. If you are playing the best, you must bring your best. THe All Blacks are not going to feel sorry for the boks and go easy on them because of the fact the Boks are trying to contribute to the noble aim of national transformation!

My mind is the impending problem of Springbok is infact reaction to that. Everyone know and admitting PdV just some policitcal appointment even though if you checking the results he not do such a bad job! But my mind is that Meyer now build the team in reactionary manner and try to bring back the past with a team base on ideals of amateur era Springboks with same tactics and basis for combinator!

And you came up with that conclusion even though there are half a team of first choice players not available?

Good on you.

We will watching and see what unfold then Biltongbek. And yes I'm not sure that half a team of first choice player are missing! and I basing this on the combinator he make any way and the "flintstone" style he make them play to.

So AWOP, in your view when we bash it up with our forwards we play flintstone rugby, but when the All Blacks and wallabies or for that matter any other team does it, they are cunning and are pulling in the defence.

When we then play it wide and score a try via JP Pietersen it is direct rugby and when other teams do it they are cunning.

When we kick an up and under we play anti rugby and when other teams kick up and unders they put the opposition under pressure.

When we win a line out it is because our Neanderthals are brutish and when other teams win lineouts they are agile.

When we scrum we do it illegally and other teams are technically correct.

When we do a skip pass it is because the "flintstone" outside the passing man missed the catch, and when other teams skip pass it is called finesse.

I really do hope coaches think that way during the Four Nations, that way we can suprise them.

No biltong you over-react!

But watch the Springbok backline. Is not guile, is not cunning, is not pace and angles. Is all about one out and the man take the line at pace and try to get over and recycle. Is not even try to get the hands through and offload, just bash, bash, bash. Then out wide and try to skirting the defence. Watch how many time the SA attack get push into touch! there is no variation. Normally not even get wide because the back get the ball and set the target along side the ruck then the next phase goes to the switch side...not even trying the inside ball to a loop or full back joining. The backs do run on at pace which is better than ENG managed but the angle to the line is always perpendicular.

SA have a good scrum. Not illegal! I never say this. I never say Lineout is Neanderthal!

I hope you do manage to surprise the other team! It would surprise me too!

Ask any NZ or Aus fan, coach or player. They say "You know what to expect" from SA. This is why all blacks fans all want SA to win the QF in the RWC last year because they prefer face the known SA than trickisome Australia.

From what I see Meyer take this template and just make it moreso. Not change to the style. Bigger players. Straighter lines. More kicking.

SA rely on "momentum" and not pace. Structure and not flair.

When England play the game at pace even (the ENG equivaler of "pace") SA look so vulnerable.

I worry that this SA team will get humiliating defeat in NZ/Aus.

AWOP, they all expect what is coming yet, we still beat them all.

Our backline is fine, Morne and Francois isn't.

We won't get humiliated.

biltongbek wrote:AWOP, they all expect what is coming yet, we still beat them all.
Our backline is fine, Morne and Francois isn't.
We won't get humiliated.

Well Biltong! SA did not beat Australia at world cup! they make the worse equal world cup and dont win the last 3N and year before year getting blackwashed in the 3N. As you say is some decline continuing already! and still SA play the same game style as we see against ENG! So let history decide if you are faith well placed or I am right to worrying this stone age style not working in modern era where expansive team like Australia, Wales and NZ rewarding!!!

Ireland try to play the same game against NZ that SA will try, with kick and keep narrow and nearly work once and twice humiliating so I will watch with the interest to see how they getting on!

You really want to go there, you want to debate the merits of that QF?

AWOP, go look at the stats mate, then you come tell me who kicked the most, don't just gobble cliche's here, go look at the bloody stats before you come talk nonsense here.

I have to agree with Biltong here, South Africa should have won that QF in the World Cup considering how well they played.

Whew. Although I agree with most of that it looks different when someone else writes it.
It is a simple formula but when done correctly hard to stop. Meyer is relying on exactly that.

I do think its true about the backline. Theres not a lot of thinking going on out there thats a result of pre-planning but again it comes down to the overall gameplan.

The forwards over backs export ratio is explained by this concept and so us the fact that Joost is probably the only back that would win a number one position in a world rugby in a vote of team of the professional era. No one else would come close. That is staggering for a team considered number two for most of that period.

It suggests a long term deliberate neglect in the development of backplay due to the insistence of a forward oriented gameplan.

In sport, the general requirement to be the very best is to leave no stone unturned. Question everything. Always be prepared to challenge the status quo, be better at every single aspect of ones performance than anyone else.

Frustratingly that is not the approach SA take all because...' that isnt their way'.

And this approach is probably one thats contributing to the gap that NZ has over SA. Because they could be that much better.

Taylorman, firstly the results between an aging SA team over new zealand suggests that the gap isn't all that big, agreed that when we aren't able to stop us you are more than a score better than us.

However, there is nothing wrong with our backline players except for Morne Steyn's inability to use vision and instinct. He is a metronome and knows no different.

That impacts how the backline plays for many reasons, he is not standing flat enough, he doesn't hit the ball at pace, he has little variation in his kicking and rarley if ever uses the grubber or chip kick as a variation.

However what must be considered is if Lambie or Goosen play at pivot the situation will be totally different, Goosen is not the type of player that you can stereotype, you won't be able to put him in a box and expect him to be a metronome. However currently he is injured, the same goes for Lambie, he has the ability to win a match on his own, granted it was only the Currie Cup final, but he singelhandedly won the cup for his team by scroing all their points including two tries.

Meyer has acknowledged that he has to take introspection about his percieved gameplan.

But FFS "flintstone" rugby?

I am busy compiling stats, and the initial data proves that in the Super 15, SA and OZ have been playing a similar game this season.

In the first round of summer tour tests, SA was the SH team that kicked the least out of hand.

Zander wrote:I have to agree with Biltong here, South Africa should have won that QF in the World Cup considering how well they played.

But we knowing that "should have won" means "I would have liked them to win", so is not some real just opinion because only "should of" that matter is the "should of" on the scoreboard which shows Australia win that game!

biltongbek wrote:Taylorman, firstly the results between an aging SA team over new zealand suggests that the gap isn't all that big, agreed that when we aren't able to stop us you are more than a score better than us.

However, there is nothing wrong with our backline players except for Morne Steyn's inability to use vision and instinct. He is a metronome and knows no different.

That impacts how the backline plays for many reasons, he is not standing flat enough, he doesn't hit the ball at pace, he has little variation in his kicking and rarley if ever uses the grubber or chip kick as a variation.

However what must be considered is if Lambie or Goosen play at pivot the situation will be totally different, Goosen is not the type of player that you can stereotype, you won't be able to put him in a box and expect him to be a metronome. However currently he is injured, the same goes for Lambie, he has the ability to win a match on his own, granted it was only the Currie Cup final, but he singelhandedly won the cup for his team by scroing all their points including two tries.

Meyer has acknowledged that he has to take introspection about his percieved gameplan.

But FFS "flintstone" rugby?

I am busy compiling stats, and the initial data proves that in the Super 15, SA and OZ have been playing a similar game this season.

In the first round of summer tour tests, SA was the SH team that kicked the least out of hand.

We are not talk about SXV here Biltong, we are talk about Springbok rugby! Most people acknowledge is two different things.

So you missed all the rest of what I wrote there.

AWOP, you know what I will no longer entertain your thoughts.

AWOP, throughout the game, South Africa had 67% possesion compared to Australia's 33%. The teritory was 75% to South Africa, 25% to Australia. This shows that South Africa were far more attacking and far closer to scoring than Australia (even though Oz scored a try). South Africa ran almost twice as many metres with the ball and Australia made around 3 times as many tackles.

This information shows that South Africa were far more attacking and spent more time in the opposition half than in their own. Believe me I am not a South Africa supporter so would not have 'liked' them to win but I felt they deserved to win.

I understand Australia did actually win the match, I just feel South Africa deserved to more.

Source: http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/match/93500.html

Don't bother Zander, he probably never saw how OZ scored that try of theirs.

Probabaly also don't know that OZ was not once penalised in defence in their half.

Probabaly also missed the shoulder charge into the ruck that took brussow out of the game after 24 minutes.

Zander wrote:AWOP, throughout the game, South Africa had 67% possesion compared to Australia's 33%. The teritory was 75% to South Africa, 25% to Australia. This shows that South Africa were far more attacking and far closer to scoring than Australia (even though Oz scored a try).

No it mean Australia were far more effective in attack with the small posession they get!

South Africa have all the ball but were so predictable that was easy to defend. This is exact the point I making! The direct kicking game not working. How long will they ignore the evidences?

It also make nonsense about the idea that SA were cheat against by the referee since SA have all the posession!

biltongbek wrote:Don't bother Zander, he probably never saw how OZ scored that try of theirs.

Probabaly also don't know that OZ was not once penalised in defence in their half.

Probabaly also missed the shoulder charge into the ruck that took brussow out of the game after 24 minutes.

Especially when Pocock was lying on the ball!

Zander wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Don't bother Zander, he probably never saw how OZ scored that try of theirs.

Probabaly also don't know that OZ was not once penalised in defence in their half.

Probabaly also missed the shoulder charge into the ruck that took brussow out of the game after 24 minutes.

Especially when Pocock was lying on the ball!

What!! Never? Surely not. His team was heavily penalised for that against Ireland, errr... oh.

biltongbek wrote:

Zander wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Don't bother Zander, he probably never saw how OZ scored that try of theirs.

Probabaly also don't know that OZ was not once penalised in defence in their half.

Probabaly also missed the shoulder charge into the ruck that took brussow out of the game after 24 minutes.

Especially when Pocock was lying on the ball!

What!! Never? Surely not. His team was heavily penalised for that against Ireland, errr... oh.

biltongbek wrote:

Zander wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Don't bother Zander, he probably never saw how OZ scored that try of theirs.

Probabaly also don't know that OZ was not once penalised in defence in their half.

Probabaly also missed the shoulder charge into the ruck that took brussow out of the game after 24 minutes.

Especially when Pocock was lying on the ball!

What!! Never? Surely not. His team was heavily penalised for that against Ireland, errr... oh.

And learn from the experience and modify the ruck behaviour. I find it so hard to understanding how SA think the referee stop them playing when they have 75% possession and couldn't score the try! Because they attack so predictable and always drifting to touch line or kick away the ball in the 22. Watch again this game and you will see what I am talk about.

I actually think the SA team were showing real glimpses of what they are capable of.

I've got a few quid on them turning the kiwi's over in the 4N.

thebluesmancometh wrote:I actually think the SA team were showing real glimpses of what they are capable of.

I've got a few quid on them turning the kiwi's over in the 4N.

You should put to the jar these pounds Bluesman. Is safer there! I didn't seeing anything new from SA and they will be disappoint to draw the last test against the injury hit ENG. They didn't cope with ENG with no fetcher at all. How will they cope with AUS and Pocock who already work his magic in the RWC against Brusouw who was supposingly the best breakdown worker in the world? and Warburton who is the best in the NH?

If an all 3N QF happens at a WC then of course the losing side will feel a sense of humiliation as they aim for nothing less than to lift the cup.

I agree that SA should have won the QF. Pocock committed three infringements in the leadup to Horwill's try. It was a battle of attrition (Brüssow's crucial loss the obvious sign as he could have neutralised Pocock) and one of those games where scintillating attack just didn't happen. Sometimes you have to grind them out. Plus we happened to supply a ref that had a shocker. Sorry again Biltong lol.

We've been on the giving and receiving end of this with Barnes and Joubert (though I will make a point to say France benefitted a lot more from Barnes' shocker than we did from Joubert's-our stats in that game were even worse than SAs vs Aus). AWOP seems to be an AB supporter looking for a bite. So again it's throwing stones in glass houses.

No I am just a neutral with the objective eyes who can saying the true!

Watch the space and I will be here when you wanting to admit I was right at end of the 4N!

Agree with Morne biltong. Whether changing him alone will bring about an attacking backline in the true sense of the word isnt a given.

If hes that bad why isnt it already an issue amongst the backs? They all seem to be ok with it. In other words they all buy into this gameplan. Its not as simple as changing the 10. The whole culture of backplay needs an overhaul.

If morne steyn was our 10 our backs would be literally tearing their hair out such is his inability and unwilingness to combine with them. Dagg, sbw, conrad. ..All of them would instantly revolt on the field if we had such a bottleneck at 10. Thats how bad it is in our view.

With SA the jdvs, f steynes etc dont seem phased by it. Never do you hear them complain when if here the whole country would be up in arms after one 10 performance of mornes. Thats how bad it is in our view. Or mine at least.

Taylorman, I can think of two reasons.

you don't open your mouth against the blue eyed boy of the coach if you want to conitnue playing.

they don't miss something they never had.

None of these guys have ever played with a Dan Carter or Quade Cooper type fly half, so if you never had it , you don't know what you are missing.

Plus they have been indoctrinated over the past 8 years.