Lax All Black Pack Cracks But Shag Backs Dagg To Drag Match Back.

First topic message reminder :

Wow. Just wow. South Africa look to be in awesome form.

Granted Australian rugby is in its most miserable state for fifty years, but there is no disguising how intimidating  this Springbok side is.

The Boks have now married their power game with a rapier precision in the Back line and the experience to know when to switch modes. Add Morne Steyn's siege boot and back in form long range goal kicking and you have a serious unit that will be tough to beat. 

Normally poor tourists, South Africa easily outmuscled a fragile looking Australia and clinched a convincing win at the bastion of Australian resistance, the parochial Suncorp stadium.

In this kind of form I can see South Africa ending new Zealand's long run of success at Eden Park. Especially with captain Richie out injured and Dan Carter out of form.

Hats off to Heyneke Meyer. I was a detractor and I put my hand up and say I was wrong.

Most impressive is south Africa's command at the breakdown. Defensively they must have the best turn over rate in the rugby championship and on attack they can maintain pressure through numerous phases and patiently wait their chance to pounce.  Just awesome stuff.

I thought the ABs matched the boks in the physical game when it mattered most, close to the line. All week the weather said wet so that andd the boks appears to have focussed the ABs on a tight game, so that helped- even though the forcast got it wrong yet again.

Agree with you on oz bb, boks will see them away easily. They didnt even score a point second half vs Argie- poor all round.

Im more confident about Ellis park because I saw enough form across our entire squad- not one could be said to have played poorly- and that contrasted with the boks needing to rely on the stronger form of some to carry the not so of others. too many had poor to average matches, especially the backs, Alberts and j du plessis.

It's the very fact that the Boks are so confident that Australia pose no threat, that Australia will win.

We know how well they go in South Africa, and how vulnerable SA can be to over-confidence.

not this time GE...we also knew how well the ozzies went in brisbane- they blew that out of the water. Anything before this year doesnt count. Oz are really as bad as the results show and the worst side for years.

This Ellis showdown has final written all over it with NZ 2 sets to love up partly because of the red card and bonus point. At least thats how I hope it pans out. SA have played well enough this year to have a shot at this title.

GE, this is not about being over confident, you are over confident when you have been winning with ease and you are inclined to disrespect an opponent.

This time it is about something entirely different.

The next two matches will be about no compromise.

It is a mindset of you are coming to our house, at our house you will not win, it isn't soomething debatabke for these Boks, it is that they have a point to prove.

When a South African retires with not a word, and you give him time to stew in his own thoughts, mindset and processes he has to work through, the only thing that comes out of it is a singlemindedness to achieve a goal, there is no compromise and only one outcome.

That is what the Wallabies will face, far removed from any overconfidence.

Without Horwill, Pocock, Higginbottom etc AUS are not the same side. They don't have the strength of depth of teams such as NZ or SA... even ENG and FRA for that matter.

Biltong wrote:GE, this is not about being over confident, you are over confident when you have been winning with ease and you are inclined to disrespect an opponent.

This time it is about something entirely different.

The next two matches will be about no compromise.

It is a mindset of you are coming to our house, at our house you will not win, it isn't soomething debatabke for these Boks, it is that they have a point to prove.

When a South African retires with not a word, and you give him time to stew in his own thoughts, mindset and processes he has to work through, the only thing that comes out of it is a singlemindedness to achieve a goal, there is no compromise and only one outcome.

That is what the Wallabies will face, far removed from any overconfidence.

For Australia it's a chance to prove that their equally unfancied win in the RWC wasn't all about Bryce Lawrence. They've done it before, it would be just like them to do it again.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Biltong wrote:GE, this is not about being over confident, you are over confident when you have been winning with ease and you are inclined to disrespect an opponent.

This time it is about something entirely different.

The next two matches will be about no compromise.

It is a mindset of you are coming to our house, at our house you will not win, it isn't soomething debatabke for these Boks, it is that they have a point to prove.

When a South African retires with not a word, and you give him time to stew in his own thoughts, mindset and processes he has to work through, the only thing that comes out of it is a singlemindedness to achieve a goal, there is no compromise and only one outcome.

That is what the Wallabies will face, far removed from any overconfidence.

For Australia it's a chance to prove that their equally unfancied win in the RWC wasn't all about Bryce Lawrence. They've done it before, it would be just like them to do it again.

keep believing that mate, you are going to be very disappointed.

Biltong wrote:GE, this is not about being over confident, you are over confident when you have been winning with ease and you are inclined to disrespect an opponent.

This time it is about something entirely different.

The next two matches will be about no compromise.

It is a mindset of you are coming to our house, at our house you will not win, it isn't soomething debatabke for these Boks, it is that they have a point to prove.

When a South African retires with not a word, and you give him time to stew in his own thoughts, mindset and processes he has to work through, the only thing that comes out of it is a singlemindedness to achieve a goal, there is no compromise and only one outcome.

That is what the Wallabies will face, far removed from any overconfidence.

good point biltong, and thats part of what makes this years bok side different. Theyve realised gaining strength from within is where the gains are made, not playing the media game. Thats why for me the only thing lacking is still the skillset of several players and that doesnt come from mental strength alone. theyll be too much for oz but against the ABs a certain few have to pick up their game as I think our guys will be ready, no matter who plays.

Not sure what skills you refer to tman.

Saturday's game was one under irregular circumstances.

I firmly believe it is not our skills that lack, I am working on a theory of why the Boks and other countries have been losing against the All Blacks more often than not, I will provide my findings at a later date.

But it has more to do with mentality than skills.

SA are starting to get a bit of a reputation for blaming referees when they lose big matches.

Something to be careful of.

I notice the complete lack of interest in discussing Keiran Read's equally ridiculous yellow card.

Now you know you are talking rubbish.

Do you seriously consider what you write are is it another wind up?

I don't deny that the referee made a mistake with the first Du Plessis yellow. But NZ led throughout the game and there is an argument that the second yellow could have constituted a red on its own, and that Read's yellow was similar rubbish. Also largely overlooked is that NZ played without McCaw and that DC was lost after just a few minutes in the same tackle. 

If SA keep blaming others and don't look inside as to why these losses in high profile games occur then they will not evolve. 

If you look at your words they are all about bare determination and quite raw direct confrontational attitude. This seems to mimick the style of the springboks at the moment - but it only works when the opposition can be intimidated.

There was nothing wrong with the tackle on DC but he was obviously targeted and this targeting of key men is a trend unfortunately, similar to Greylings selection which was apparently only based on having an expendable unit in the side to target McCaw.

Biltong wrote:Not sure what skills you refer to tman.

Saturday's game was one under irregular circumstances.

I firmly believe it is not our skills that lack, I am working on a theory of why the Boks and other countries have been losing against the All Blacks more often than not, I will provide my findings at a later date.

But it has more to do with mentality than skills.

Pienaars passing and all round play, Steyns option taking, Le roux's relative inexperience was shown up last week, Kirchners inability to work with others around him, J du Plessis' tackling, Englebrechts lack of presence at Centre. All were exposed last week and cant be put down to a player down. Agree the mentality is there, but not so sure its as present in some as much as others. Key players carried others last week which made the card even worse as DP was the ringleader.

Those aren't skills.

Pienaar is just a poor international player, been saying that for years.
Morn Steyn is limited, we all know that.
Kirchner is a selfish player, he has no vision.
Engelbrecht and Willie is inexperienced, that only comes with experience, it isn't lack of skill.

Du Plessis is no Os du Randt, but one glaring missed tackle doesn't make him a poor defender.

Whether you call them abilities or skills the argument still holds. That's where the gap is, it's not about determination or mental strength or referees.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I don't deny that the referee made a mistake with the first Du Plessis yellow. But NZ led throughout the game and there is an argument that the second yellow could have constituted a red on its own, and that Read's yellow was similar rubbish. Also largely overlooked is that NZ played without McCaw and that DC was lost after just a few minutes in the same tackle. 

If SA keep blaming others and don't look inside as to why these losses in high profile games occur then they will not evolve. 

If you look at your words they are all about bare determination and quite raw direct confrontational attitude. This seems to mimick the style of the springboks at the moment - but it only works when the opposition can be intimidated.

There was nothing wrong with the tackle on DC but he was obviously targeted and this targeting of key men is a trend unfortunately, similar to Greylings selection which was apparently only based on having an expendable unit in the side to target McCaw.

With 15 men on each side the score was 10-10 at half time, the 7 point lead was a try scored during the 14 minutes. bismarck was off.

At the 42nd minute mark the score was still 17-10

Then NZ scored another 2 tries to lead by nineteen with us having 14 men.

So yes, they were always going to lead.

During this time we had a choice to make, either one short in the breakdowns, or one short in defence. Our scrums had no power.

When Jano Vermaak came on and Read went off to bring it back to 14 per team we kept NZ nder pressure for that whole period, so much so that they buckled under pressure and commited 5 infringements and ultimately another yellow card via Nonu.

When you say Suth Africa you need to clarify whether you are talking about supporters, pundits or the Springboks themselves. A theory of "if they keep blaming the ref" is pure and utter conjecture on your part. It is like saying if there was a man on the moon, thumbsuckingly obvious.

Comparing Dean Greyling's idiocy with Bismarck du Plessis perfectly executed tackle is desperation on your part.

Greyling's attack on McCaw was an individual brain fart, not a collective targeting of the man, neither was the tackle on Carter.

If SA were in the business of taking players out surely we would have been more successful in removing McCaw or Carter from the field in all their years of playing.

Mu "words" is a way to exain to you the mentality of what the Wallabies will face, you choose to see it as aggressive.

There are two ways you can read aggression, the way I assume your meant it as a vindictive manner, or the way rugby is played by hard physical and agressive contact.

You seriously need to think about the stuff you write, because some of it makes very little sense.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Whether you call them abilities or skills the argument still holds. That's where the gap is, it's not about determination or mental strength or referees.

If we wanted to emulate the All Blacks then yes, those are shortcomings.

We don't emulate them, and don't intend to.

Willie le Roux and JJ Engelbrecht are young and inexperienced, what they lack only comes with time, hence called inexperience.

Fourie du Preez will play in SA.

Regardless of the interpretation, mental toughness is not going to give engel. or Le roux experience, Kirchner vision, steyn, flexibility for this match. These are weaknesses in the side to be exploited from a technical and tactical point of view. All the 'resolve' in the world cannot make up for items that simply arent there.

SA are getting there through a large shift in mental toughness, confidence but still have to sort out individual skill levels to compete at this level.

Taylorman, every team have weaknesses, even the All Blacks, they can be found out on a good day, the same as any other team.

But it all starts with the right mentality, something the All Blacks have honed over time.

They've also honed their skills over time. To try to attribute NZ success simply to a mental attitude is a little simplistic. Although I already hear the sound of thundering hooves arriving en masse to talk about World Cup mental fragility. Sigh. That one really WAS a referee.

Exactly, which is why Ive pointed out that its those skills that will cost SA if they remain at the levels at Eden park. fdp for me is a risk. Hasnt played sxv nor at this level. Forget the argie match- any 9 would have done well in that match.

Might be nitpicking here but the points Im making are our best chances at ellis, this newfound resolve a little concerning i have to admit. Agree...a good place to start...

GloriousEmpire wrote:They've also honed their skills over time. To try to attribute NZ success simply to a mental attitude is a little simplistic. Although I already hear the sound of thundering hooves arriving en masse to talk about World Cup mental fragility. Sigh. That one really WAS a referee.

Do you purposely read into a statement just what you want?

I didn't say it is only mental resolve, did I?

I have waxed lyrical about their skills enough times, eh?

I am saying for me that is the difference that the Springboks have to work on.

The thundering hooves comment I simply don't get.

Biltong wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:They've also honed their skills over time. To try to attribute NZ success simply to a mental attitude is a little simplistic. Although I already hear the sound of thundering hooves arriving en masse to talk about World Cup mental fragility. Sigh. That one really WAS a referee.

Do you purposely read into a statement just what you want?

I didn't say it is only mental resolve, did I?

I have waxed lyrical about their skills enough times, eh?

I am saying for me that is the difference that the Springboks have to work on.

The thundering hooves comment I simply don't get.

And I'm saying it isn't. It's skill level the Boks have to work on. I'm not saying it's a gulf and that it can't be bridged. Or that on their day the Boks can't execute sufficiently to win given they manufacture enough chances. Merely that the difference at the moment is execution and successfully taking chances with lower percentages of success. Both teams have the same ambition, but SA are failing to execute at the moment.

Failing to execute?

When?

They're just not getting that 1% conversion rate extra they need when they create chances.

Biltong, is it not a case of a bit of both - skills and mentality, or at least, composure. I think the ABs win most games because they're better than the opposition in all areas by a small amount, physically, mentally and in terms of skill. But I reckon skill is consistently the biggest divider.

Hood, yes it is a combination.

But skill sets differ depending on team, you cannot compare the skill set required to play the All Black game with the skill set required to the Springbok game.

Although some skills overlap, each team depending on the manner they play, they will have seperate skills that are required in varying degrees.

Where I beleive the major difference comes in is the mentality of teams.

I will use South Arica as an example.

When we play NZ we play a defensive strategy scoring points based on New Zealand mistakes.

We depend on them to err either in infringements or errors whilst attacking, when they infringe we will take easy points, and only attack their tryline via line out IF we feel momentum is on our side, counter attack once again is dependant on field position and momentum, otherwise we kick the ball out.

I beleive most teams make that mistake against the All Blacks.

It is one thing having respect for the Aura of NZ, but a different thing altogether being in awe of them.

I read a comment today where a New Zealand supporter was saying that NZ has a Ten Point lead because of the Haka.

I think he is over stating it a little, but I guess that can be part of the myth of the All Blacks.

I firmly believe this awe teams hold for the All Blacks are holding them back.

SA never used to have an Awe for NZ prior to isolation, there was always just a healthy rivalry, it is only in the oro era that we have begun falling in the same trap as other teams.

And that is where I believe we need to change.

All other teams make more mistakes against the Boks which means we get more opportunity to counter. It has changed somewhat this year, we no do attack more against them, perhaps the reason for our run at the moment.

But we are there yet, we still tend to lose that mentality every now and then.

I watched on the weekend, in the last twenty minutes, even before we had 14 on 14 players, the All Blacks came under pressure and started infringing a lot, the pressure got to them.

Now that is only human, there for South Africa must change their mindset and instead of kicking possession away, they must have the attitude that possession is nine tenths if the law, whether you pick something up on the street, or on a rugby field.

Teams aren't putting enough pressure on the AB's.

If they have more patience and the right attitude, they will find no matter how good their opponent, pressure cuases errors of judgement which ultimately lead to points.

That game plan would require SA to out skill NZ in attack though. Currently I think they're 20 points short as we saw last year.

And holding onto the ball means more chances of making errors that the ABs can capitalize on. It's been said above, no team can sniff out a try from nothing (mistakes) more than the ABs. Most teams play the territory game against the ABs because they're sh*t scared. It was the same in the weekend, boot, boot, rumble, boot, intercept attempt, bash, boot, bash. Nothing enterprising about the SA performance. Too conservative. And I doubt it's an 'awe' thing. Just a 'better' team thing.

Yeah last week highlighted some stuff for me that gives us a look in at Ellis- one is when under the pump some of the Boks are dropping their guard while others are right up there making the inroads. Against Oz that wasnt so obvious as they all played well enough and targetting those players might give us the gains we need. This will be our toughest match for two years so its crucial we get through the Argie match intact, and hopefully with a win/ bonus point.

Think you guys are getting a bit cocky after a lucky win.

So the summation on skill and mentality of the Boks you make based on a match thwere the All Blacks had a numrecial advantage for half a match?

OK, live in that bubble.

Biltong wrote:So the summation on skill and mentality of the Boks you make based on a match thwere the All Blacks had a numrecial advantage for half a match?

OK, live in that bubble.

The areas Im referring to are not related to being a player down. Question for you biltong is how much weight are you putting on DPs absence affecting the actual result? Id say a fair bit. Skill wise the Boks have a lot to be concerned about and that will be an issue for them next round. Not concerned about the ABs being able to match the Bok intensity anymore. Last week was fine. Im expecting at Ellis another level.

I suggest we wait for next match. you were concerned prior to the match, not only about our physicality, but also our ability to attack.

Then after a mismatched event, your confidence is back, and your lack of respect shows once again.

All based on a match that went one way de to a numerical advantage.


Before I start thrashing and criticising an opposition team (which by the way I rarely so) I at least wait for a fair contest before making wholesale assumptions on skills, ability etc.

I think that is what you want to believe.

But that is entirely your choice.

respect is two ways. You're glossing over the bok skill levels with the red card. I'm saying theyre there card or not. Im commenting on what they did do, not what they might have done. That is all we can do after all.

Taylorman wrote:respect is two ways. You're glossing over the bok skill levels with the red card. I'm saying theyre there card or not. Im commenting on what they did do, not what they might have done. That is all we can do after all.

And its not about being personal biltong. My observations of the boks pre AB match were based on the ability to play an expansive game with few obvious errors being made.

With the AB match a lot of that disappeared, and even before DP went off the boks had already reverted to type, never ran the ball, and made many basic errors. My opinion is that if those levels arent improved on at a technical level then the boks will find it difficult at Ellis. That is my opinion based on my observations.

How come one week my observations are acceptable but the next theyre disrespectful, particularly when you seem to put the entire bok performance down to half a match without a player. Does that mean we arent allowed to voice an opinion- because of the unfairness of the situation?

Skill levels can be made up by other things though can't they? The Boks use their physicality well and when they were playing 15 against 15 it was level scores. Do you not think things would have been much tighter had that stayed? They've finished strongly in their recent matches so who's to say they wouldn't have cut loose to great affect and blown the All Blacks out of the water with those skills had they not had to battle through 50 odd min a man down?

SA away in NZ with Morne is the side are never going to be expansive.... teams have a game plan. When SA have beaten NZ its never because they've played better expansive rugby... its that they have smashed them upfront, strangled their possession, kept the pressure on with constant point scoring be it tries, penalties or drop goals and prevented them from playing their natural game.

Had Bismarck stayed on the pitch I don't for a second think that SA would have played with more width etc... but they would have been far stronger upfront and it would have been far closer and the result would have been no way certain either way.

I still think NZ would have won, defensively the boks are not quite there yet.

and who's to say the ABs wouldnt have won by more had the game been played with 15 each. The ABs have shown they dont need to be a man up to do that on a regular basis, or are to draw a mathematical hypothesis that 14 translates to a certain number of points to one particular side. My comments were limited to the individual skill levels of certain players where things actually happened. If people choose to sweep all that aside and assume that none of that would have happened, that everything would have clicked, passes would have been made, options would have been taken then fine. Recent history shows that aint the case. There are the same issues with the same players, and they need to be worked on.

I was just going on the state of the game where the amount of players was equal. It was very evenly balanced so I don't think it's that much of a leap to suggest that it would have remained so if the amount of players also remained. The All Blacks were getting a little ragged towards the end. They remain the best and have better skills as you suggest but I don't think they are head and shoulders above the rest as has been suggested.

of course Taylorman what you say is technically true.

A team with 15 players on the park are near always better then they are with 14. Perhaps in an alternate reality in 03 when England withstood 4 scrums at the 5m line with 13 men vs 15 Kiwi's, the ENG scrum would have buckled had they had a full side on the pitch and NZ would have scored. Likely... no, possible... it happens.

A team with Bismarck DP is better then a team without.

But that doesn't mean that Bismarck may not make a mistake in a one off situation, perhaps he would have gifted NZ a try, dropped an important tackle etc. But when you average things out you would say SA are better with him in the side and their chances of victory (however big or small), increase.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was just going on the state of the game where the amount of players was equal. It was very evenly balanced so I don't think it's that much of a leap to suggest that it would have remained so if the amount of players also remained. The All Blacks were getting a little ragged towards the end. They remain the best and have better skills as you suggest but I don't think they are head and shoulders above the rest as has been suggested.

ragged towards the end...? but hey werent they down a man for the last 8 minutes? or doesnt that count now?

That's what was frustrating about the match. Obviously SA feel a lot more aggrieved but NZ I'm sure would've wanted all of SA's players on the pitch to show that they are still deserving of the number one spot. NZ has never been leaps and bounds above any other team. They are just good at making their opportunities count but often they are losing in the possession, set piece or breakdown stakes.

To me SA looked dangerous with their mauls and the set piece. Etzebeth can win ball even when the opposition knows the ball is going to him. That requires the opposition to go back to the think tank and find a way to counter that. NZ made their numerical advantage count and with the conditions and the man off, they adapted and made the advantage in close work for them as opposed to out wide where they felt SA was pressing them too much in the centre.

Both sides need to work on a lot and no doubt it will be another clash of styles at Ellis Park. Altitude will mean SA can play the territory game and try to go for the lineout in the NZ 22. NZ will feel with the dry conditions they can get their counter attacking game going. The clash of styles will meet in the middle and which team can cut their error rate down and maximise their strengths and limit the opposition's strengths will prove the difference. There's not much in it but there are certain factors that can be accentuated on both sides. That makes for a fascinating contest. SA will come out with a steely resolve to get vengeance for that decision. But frankly NZ will come out with a burning desire to prove that they are the number one side and don't need any decisions going their way. Winning at Ellis Park doesn't get any more difficult for a NZ side. To win there is the biggest statement you can make in rugby outside of the World Cup. Therein lies NZ's motivation and somewhat negates SA's.

Taylorman wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was just going on the state of the game where the amount of players was equal. It was very evenly balanced so I don't think it's that much of a leap to suggest that it would have remained so if the amount of players also remained. The All Blacks were getting a little ragged towards the end. They remain the best and have better skills as you suggest but I don't think they are head and shoulders above the rest as has been suggested.

ragged towards the end...? but hey werent they down a man for the last 8 minutes? or doesnt that count now?

They were down a man due to the pressure that was being placed on them by SA. They could well have lost Smith as well when Nonu went off who was desperately killing the ball. All I'm saying is that when it was level SA were very capable of putting NZ under the cosh and getting a result inspite of their lower levels of skill.

It isn't about desputing whether New Zealand is worthy of being number one.

That is not in doubt.

But South Africa is mounting a serious challenge.

The skills Taylorman keeps referring to is moot.

We don't play the way NZ does.

Over the past 12 months, our tactics were simple, soften the opposition up front, stay in range and attack when the opportunity arises.

That attack can be via forward mauling from line outs, (which happens only a few times per match) and the wide running is direct, there is no NZ skills necessary, it is direct running, putting the opposition on the back foot, and using pace out wide and power to score tries.

The reason why that was impeded against NZ was very simple (At least to a blind man) one down in the forwards negates softening the opposition, especially the best team in the world.

We don't do finnicky stuff, we play straight up in your face rugby. And if anyone doubts whether it is ineffective against the all Blacks, explain to me why from 2004 to 2009 it worked?

We are getting back there, so the skills you are talking about makes no sense.

Kick a ball, catch a ball, soften the opponent, run him into the ground, double team him in the tackle, turn over ball and pounce on mistakes.

We have done that with aplomb in the past 10 matches whilst having 15 men on the field.

For any team to beat NZ with 14 men is a match in a 100.

The skills by NZ was not always on show this past weekend either, that is why they are called mistakes.

Execution and skills go hand in hand, but execution of basic skills and gameplan, trumps anything else. Our game plan was thwarted.

Now I don't want to carry on about the fact that we only had 14 men on the field, but to now all of a sudden say we lack skills, is utter nonsense.

If you had won in Auckland you would've gained the number one ranking. That might not have been warranted in your mind BB but it would have been nonetheless the case. That's not something you give up lightly. Of course the ranking is not so important per se but the psychological factor of beating your opponent away from home is immeasurable. When you're the top team you don't want to give up any of that advantage. It's difficult to find motivation when you keep winning so you have to go looking for it.

If I were Hansen, I'd be telling his players you won the game last weekend but people think that SA were robbed the chance of victory. That is to say, people question this NZ side. One result could've given up the number one ranking. One bad result and you come much closer to that becoming reality. So be ruthless and don't let it happen. Win at Ellis Park and people will put away the SA should be number one comments for a little while. You might not have ever said that BB but I read enough comments from your compatriots who aren't trolls who think SA are good enough to hold that claim. I don't see anything wrong with that but that's the doubt to the number one status that I'm talking about and how that can be used as a motivational tool.

NZ were two men down for the last 10 minutes. And had a raft of injuries. They also knew they'd won already. It got erratic and sloppy and it was a bad tempered match. Poite had lost the plot completely.

The interesting thing is the sympathy about Poite's performance is all one way. In the NZ herald there was an article pointing out that had the tables been reversed NZ would not have benefited from the kind of reAction SA got. How do we know? History.

So I'm saying they got one bad call - so did we. All things are even. There is absolutely nothing that detracts from the quality of that hard fought win where NZ took on SA in the power game and won, and then finessed it.

It all comes back to the three bears theory again.

What bad call did you get? If you're thinking Read it was probably balanced out by Smith staying on. Didn't Poite was that bad apart from 1 horrendous bit of thinking.

Thanks for proving my point 7.5

My feeling is that du Plessis deserved the straight red for the elbow to the throat. This is in line with usual punishment and there is historical precedent for it.

Reads incorrect yellow matches DP's first yellow, so it's all square.

Back onto WUM mode then are you GE.