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

by GloriousEmpire Sat 07 Sep 2013, 1:00 pm

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.

by Taylorman Thu 19 Sep 2013, 12:31 pm

Biltong wrote: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.

Ive said for some time the gap is still not closing. SA last beat NZ in the rare rested players test in 2011. Before than in 2009 under the old tackle ball rules. None of the others have been close other than the dagg try in sowetto and the Dunedin match last year which was largely lost by reduced skill levels- or specifically Steyn who completely lost it with his goalkicking.

Last week I saw the same things that have usually lost SA matches in that period- no width, poor options, poor execution and defence. There were some good moments- DPs try for instance and some good pressure late in the game. No doubting SAs strengths are up front, but by not developing the required level of skill in certain positions- 9, 10, 12, 13 wing and FB- all of whom have obvious deficiencies of some sort simply means you need other players to make up for it.

How can...'we dont play that way' be an explanation for having up to 5-6 postions lacking skill in some area and call that a good thing...a positive. it just doesnt make a logical argument. Match after match that approach hasnt worked. At what point do we say...maybe we better focus on those positions that keep letting us down instead of largely ignoring them?

by **Biltong** Thu 19 Sep 2013, 1:24 pm

GE, the IRB cleared the first yellow card, and RECINDED the red card, if they thought the elbow fend was worthy of a Red card they would not have RECINDED the Red Card.

Kia, the world rankings mean zero to me, if we did beat the All Blacks last weekend, it would only have meant we were better on the day, it would still not make us the best team in the world.

There for the world rankings carry no weight with me.

by **Biltong** Thu 19 Sep 2013, 1:27 pm

Taylorman wrote:
Biltong wrote: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.
Ive said for some time the gap is still not closing. SA last beat NZ in the rare rested players test in 2011. Before than in 2009 under the old tackle ball rules. None of the others have been close other than the dagg try in sowetto and the Dunedin match last year which was largely lost by reduced skill levels- or specifically Steyn who completely lost it with his goalkicking.

Last week I saw the same things that have usually lost SA matches in that period- no width, poor options, poor execution and defence. There were some good moments- DPs try for instance and some good pressure late in the game. No doubting SAs strengths are up front, but by not developing the required level of skill in certain positions- 9, 10, 12, 13 wing and FB- all of whom have obvious deficiencies of some sort simply means you need other players to make up for it.

How can...'we dont play that way' be an explanation for having up to 5-6 postions lacking skill in some area and call that a good thing...a positive. it just doesnt make a logical argument. Match after match that approach hasnt worked. At what point do we say...maybe we better focus on those positions that keep letting us down instead of largely ignoring them?

Taylorman, why don't you wait till Ellispark before you rate a Bok performance when there is 15 players on each side?

You are rating us on a game where we had a player short, now whether you want to look at going wide when an extra man can cut you off, or you want to compare NZ's ability to gain parity in our scrums when they scrummed against 7 men for the majority of the match, or you look at our ability to go wide on the basis of an atrocious performance by Ruan Pienaar, it is moot.

by GloriousEmpire Thu 19 Sep 2013, 2:11 pm

There will always be mitigating factors you could hide behind.

Probably the worst thing that could happen for SA would be to win the return match. I'm not anticipating much of a fair contest and it is likely to continue to hide the ongoing skill deficit.

by **Biltong** Thu 19 Sep 2013, 2:22 pm

by Taylorman Thu 19 Sep 2013, 6:43 pm

Biltong wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
Biltong wrote: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.
Ive said for some time the gap is still not closing. SA last beat NZ in the rare rested players test in 2011. Before than in 2009 under the old tackle ball rules. None of the others have been close other than the dagg try in sowetto and the Dunedin match last year which was largely lost by reduced skill levels- or specifically Steyn who completely lost it with his goalkicking.

Last week I saw the same things that have usually lost SA matches in that period- no width, poor options, poor execution and defence. There were some good moments- DPs try for instance and some good pressure late in the game. No doubting SAs strengths are up front, but by not developing the required level of skill in certain positions- 9, 10, 12, 13 wing and FB- all of whom have obvious deficiencies of some sort simply means you need other players to make up for it.

How can...'we dont play that way' be an explanation for having up to 5-6 postions lacking skill in some area and call that a good thing...a positive. it just doesnt make a logical argument. Match after match that approach hasnt worked. At what point do we say...maybe we better focus on those positions that keep letting us down instead of largely ignoring them?
Taylorman, why don't you wait till Ellispark before you rate a Bok performance when there is 15 players on each side?

You are rating us on a game where we had a player short, now whether you want to look at going wide when an extra man can cut you off, or you want to compare NZ's ability to gain parity in our scrums when they scrummed against 7 men for the majority of the match, or you look at our ability to go wide on the basis of an atrocious performance by Ruan Pienaar, it is moot.

yep no worries but if those 'moot points' dont improve I expect largely the same result.

by GloriousEmpire Thu 19 Sep 2013, 7:51 pm

Unfortunately I predict a referee pendulum. SA will spoil at will because they know there can be no yellow card. This will slow the game and play to their favour.

by Taylorman Thu 19 Sep 2013, 8:05 pm

dont think the ref will be an issue. I think we learned a lot from this bok side. The concern I had was purely around the expansive approach the boks had taken. Last week that didnt eventuate and I expect the same at Ellis. So we are back to previous years- predictable, no risk rugby. Its been proven time and time again that isnt enough.

by blackcanelion Fri 20 Sep 2013, 2:05 am

Some thoughts:

last thoughts on the ref: via SA refs web site:

http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-that-red-card/2829987/
http://www.sareferees.com/News/are-refs-inviolable/2829992/

I agree with a lot of what is said here.

Secondly: cards and penalties. I had a a thought re cards and nationality. It would be really great if it were easy to look at historical cards, incidents etc. It's not easy and it's really hard to tell if one country gets preferentially treated as it is subjective.

A list of players and red card/yellow card incidents is available on the ESPN scrum.com website. I wondered what it could tell us about how refs have treated SA rugby. I've looked at the games post 1999 world cup, when the cards became universal in test rugby. Here are some thoughts:

1: the boks are more likely have a player yellow carded (1 every 2 games) than many other sides (they share this with Argentina and Italy). France and Ireland stand out as teams that don't get carded (about 1 every 5 games).
2: The boks get players sent off against most sides. They are particularly susceptible to being carded against European sides like Ireland, France, Wales. Somewhat surprisingly they are significantly less likely to have a player sent off playing Argentina, NZ or England.
3: Italians and Irish are more likely to get yellow carded playing the boks, the Scottish and Welsh the least.
4: The boks have had less players sent off under PDivvy. Somehow France has really manged to reduce the number of yellow cards awarded against them. Scotland and Italy also seem to have as well.
5: Argentina, Italy, Scotland and South Africa seem to have markedly less advantage when playing at home, in terms of yellow cards, compared with the other nations.

The big questions for me:

1) what are the French doing differently. They seem to have improved their on field discipline.
2) Why is it that teams like Italy, Argentina and South Africa have higher rates of yellow cards.

Any thoughts?

by Taylorman Fri 20 Sep 2013, 6:10 am

For me it just looks like a scattering of cards without a lot to read into it- what sort of numbers are we looking at?

by **Biltong** Fri 20 Sep 2013, 7:36 am

Lax All Black Pack Cracks But Shag Backs Dagg To Drag Match Back. - Page 9 Yellow10

First table shows the countries involved in the RC and Six Nations, the next table shows the Pacific Islands

by **Biltong** Fri 20 Sep 2013, 7:39 am

Red Cards since 2000.

Samoa 5
Fiji 4
Italy 4
South Africa 4
Tonga 4
England 2
Scotland 2
Australia 1
Ireland 1
Japan 1
Wales 1

by **Biltong** Fri 20 Sep 2013, 8:00 am

Some statistics about the game.

Possession
SA 52%
NZ 48%

Time on opposition half
NZ 52%
SA 48%

Time spent in Opposition 22
NZ 3min 54 seconds
SA 3 min 22 seconds

Runs in the open
NZ 25
SA 20

Runs in the tight
SA 34
NZ 24

Kick return runs
SA 5
NZ 4

Meters ran
NZ 494 meters
SA 371 meters

Line outs won on opposition throw
SA 2

Kicks
NZ 30
SA 23

Tackle completion
NZ 83%
SA 75%

Line breaks
NZ 4
SA 2

Phases
SA 183
NZ 175

Overall with a man down for half a match, I reckon those stats are telling.

by blackcanelion Fri 20 Sep 2013, 9:35 am

Another stat is the penalty count
NZ penalised 14 and 1 free kick
SA penalised 8 and 1 free kicks

I'm sympathetic to the card issue last game. I'm interested in understanding why there is a bias in the issuing of cards (be it real or perceived issues in terms of the refs). However, I think there is a danger of extrapolating too much. Hansen alluded to issues with Poite from a NZ perspective. Particularly with respect to the tackle/ruck. The boks have a significant number of games since the last world cup where they've been on the right side of the ref, in terms of penalty count.

For me, the game effectively finished when the red card was issued. The boks were affected by the first card. I'm not sure I'd read anything else into it. As far as the game plan goes. I think Meyers plan is very effective against NZ. Personally, I see them as favorites in Jo'berg. I expect, physicality, a lot of high Garry Owens, a very flat defence and strong set piece. If the boks are ahead and AB's are tiring in the last 20 minutes I think they might look run the ball. That's not because I don't think this bok team can play another way. It's because I think it's a very effective way of dealing with NZ.If they do decide to run the ball, I think they have some talented players.

by **Biltong** Fri 20 Sep 2013, 9:47 am

BC, the last 5 penalties all came in the last 8 minutes when SA camped in the NZ 22.

by Guest Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:02 am

Did that last 8 minutes also skew the time spent in opponents 22 stat? That stat could be misleading given the scoreline with 8 to go. It was a good late flourish though.

by blackcanelion Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:10 am

Biltong wrote:BC, the last 5 penalties all came in the last 8 minutes when SA camped in the NZ 22.

I'll take your word for it. I'm not sure it changes my argument as whole though. Look I'm sympathetic. I think your team got a raw deal with the first card. I'm not sure I'd read to much into the rest of the game as a result. I'm disappointed that a really great game effectively ended at half time. The whole game changes as a result. I think the boks are a bl&^%y good side and have a better than even chance of winning the return fixture.

I don't think many kiwis will be happy with Poite ruling at the breakdown/tackle, because consistent infringements negatively impacted on the way we play the game. Having said that it's up to us to adjust. Rugby is about adapting your game to adjust to conditions, opponents and refs. Hansen noted the issue in his post match. My question is what is he going to do about it. I think it's our biggest achilles heal at the moment (we're a bit out of synch with Europe).

by GloriousEmpire Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:18 am

The game fell apart completely at about the time Poite bizarrely sent Read to the sin bin for doing essentially nothing.

The last 8-9 minutes were just a farce.

by Taylorman Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:35 am

Biltong wrote:Red Cards since 2000.

Samoa 5
Fiji 4
Italy 4
South Africa 4
Tonga 4
England 2
Scotland 2
Australia 1
Ireland 1
Japan 1
Wales 1

hard case. Our PI neighbours have half of all red cards issued!

by **Biltong** Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:39 am

GloriousEmpire wrote:The game fell apart completely at about the time Poite bizarrely sent Read to the sin bin for doing essentially nothing.

The last 8-9 minutes were just a farce.

Why only the last 8 minutes?

by GloriousEmpire Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:42 am

Taylorman wrote:
Biltong wrote:Red Cards since 2000.

Samoa 5
Fiji 4
Italy 4
South Africa 4
Tonga 4
England 2
Scotland 2
Australia 1
Ireland 1
Japan 1
Wales 1
hard case. Our PI neighbours have half of all red cards issued!

I've always thought PI teams get the raw end if the pineapple from refs, particularly NH ones. Granted sometimes some teams are bit lacking in discipline, but I think if we get some PI refs on the scene this will even out.

by GloriousEmpire Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:44 am

Biltong wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:The game fell apart completely at about the time Poite bizarrely sent Read to the sin bin for doing essentially nothing.

The last 8-9 minutes were just a farce.
Why only the last 8 minutes?

Did you watch it? It just lost all structure. Poite was desperately trying to even up the card and penalty count and he just lost control completely.

by **Biltong** Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:46 am

so according to you the rest of the game was fine?

did the game perhaps fall apart because we had parity in numbers and a man advantage for the last 5 minutes?

Are you also suggesting that Poite realised he erred and tried to compensate for his errors?

If so do you not think two wrongs do make a right?

by GloriousEmpire Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:51 am

Biltong wrote:so according to you the rest of the game was fine?

did the game perhaps fall apart because we had parity in numbers and a man advantage for the last 5 minutes?

SA did well to maintain structure after DP was sent off and played much the same style as they had in the first half. NZ were lacking a bit of patience and pushing it a bit from every phase.

For some reason around 70 minutes with the game over Poite completely changed tack and began dishing out some anger at the ABs. I suspect to even up the penalty count and construct some dismissals. At that point the game just lost all structure. The All Blacks back line was entirely improvised and with the exhausted springboks scrambling for a bonus point the whole thing took on the shambolic disorganised scrambling low skill hue of a six nations clash for the last 10.

by Taylorman Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:52 am

For me the cards done. A red card is not going to be in play in Ellis park. I'm not with you bc. I dont think the bok approach with the ABs is the right one. The ABs showed enough to suggest they can handle the boks up front and scored all their tries going through bok forwards. They were also able to let loose when they needed to. Fact is we dont know what would have happened had the card not been given. the match may have been over at that point and if thats the case, the ABs were ahead at that point.

The reason we have consistently beaten the boks since 2010 is simply because they have not had a lot more than forward based structures.

Thats all they had last week as well. Same plan. Same result,before and after the card.

this limitation will cost them at Ellis if they stick to the status quo. They may win it, but if they do it will mean that the backs have contributed much more than last week, which was negligible.

by GloriousEmpire Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:58 am

Still think some folks are getting ahead of themselves here. There are games to play this weekend which can influence the outcome if the tournament.

by **Biltong** Fri 20 Sep 2013, 10:59 am

Well maybe the Backs will contribute more if our forwards have parity in numbers, eh?

by GloriousEmpire Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:03 am

Didn't see it in the first 40 minutes.

If you think about it, with parity in the forwards and a one man over lap in the backs they still needed a lucky bounce on a cross field kick to manufacture an overlap to score. That's fairly poor.

by **Biltong** Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:08 am

Yeah, we base our game on luck, no skills necessary.

Do you actually think about the stuff you come up with, or does it just come naturally?

Keep believing this nonsense mate, if everyone were to believe the stuff you spout, then it wouldn't be necessary for anyone to play NZ, they could just make up a league of their own, eh?

by No 7&1/2 Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:14 am

GloriousEmpire wrote:
Biltong wrote:so according to you the rest of the game was fine?

did the game perhaps fall apart because we had parity in numbers and a man advantage for the last 5 minutes?
SA did well to maintain structure after DP was sent off and played much the same style as they had in the first half. NZ were lacking a bit of patience and pushing it a bit from every phase.

For some reason around 70 minutes with the game over Poite completely changed tack and began dishing out some anger at the ABs. I suspect to even up the penalty count and construct some dismissals. At that point the game just lost all structure. The All Blacks back line was entirely improvised and with the exhausted springboks scrambling for a bonus point the whole thing took on the shambolic disorganised scrambling low skill hue of a six nations clash for the last 10.

And you loved the 1st weekend of the 6 nations as an England fan! Poite did lose it a bit allowing Smith to stay on the pitch. May have influenced a bonus point for SA.

by Taylorman Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:22 am

Biltong wrote:Well maybe the Backs will contribute more if our forwards have parity in numbers, eh?

perhaps...though the paritys been there every other test.

I just feel the boks clammed up, reversed everything theyd done all year to get to a very good position against oz, then just decided in the one week to throw all that out the window purely because it was the ABs.

Theyd have been better building on that progress sending it wide wherever possible. I think theyve regressed after some very good work over the last few months and that change of heart was reflected in the lack of confidence in the backs.

by fa0019 Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:30 am

Against AUS if you can smash them upfront and get on the front foot the job of the backs are a lot easier, holes will become larger and the AUS backrow will have a significant disadvantage in every ruck. From that any backline will look more proficient then it is with parity upfront.

SA will not dominate NZ like they, the Lions and NZ have done to AUS this year. Given that and a probable parity upfront situation then it would be up to the backs to go hammer and tong with the ABs backline.
Man for man the ABs backline is more skillful, thats not a bold statement, just truth for the current 7 vs 7 on the field. Given that SA would be mad to not change their tactics and play a more conservative game.... otherwise they take out every chance they have of getting a result.

The plan was always to play it tight, take their chances on goal and hope for their forwards to start to dominate in the 2nd half... with the red card (and the yellow which helped NZ to forge a good lead in the 1st half) all that went out the window and it changed to a damage limitation strategy.... keep NZ from getting a bonus point and keep the scoreline as close as possible.

by **Biltong** Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:40 am

Taylorman wrote:
Biltong wrote:Well maybe the Backs will contribute more if our forwards have parity in numbers, eh?
perhaps...though the paritys been there every other test.

I just feel the boks clammed up, reversed everything theyd done all year to get to a very good position against oz, then just decided in the one week to throw all that out the window purely because it was the ABs.

Theyd have been better building on that progress sending it wide wherever possible. I think theyve regressed after some very good work over the last few months and that change of heart was reflected in the lack of confidence in the backs.

It is your perception that we didn't play wide,

NZ forwards runs (meters made)
Tony Woodcock 2 (5m)
Dan Coles 1 (3m)
Owen Franks 4 (11m)
Brodie Retallick 8 (51m)
Samuel Whitelock 5 (18m)
Liam Messam 6 (27m)
Sam Cane 4 (16m)
Kieran Read 5 (21m)
Keven Mealamu 2 (2m)
Charlie Faumuina 1 (2m)
Steven Luatua 1 (6m)

Forward runs 39

NZ backline runs (meters made)
Aaron Smith 2 (11m)
Daniel Carter 1 (4m)
Julian Savea 5 (37m)
Ma'a Nonu 5 (41m)
Conrad Smith 6 (57m)
Ben Smith 4 (36m)
Beauden Barrett 7 (83m)
Charles Piutau 3 (56m)
Tawera Kerr-Barlow 1 (7m)

Back runs 34

Sa forward runs (meters made)
Tendai Mtawarira 2 (2m)
Bismarck du Plessis 5 (16m)
Jannie du Plessis 2 (4m)
Eben Etzebeth 6 (16m)
Flip van der Merwe 1 (1m)
Francois Louw 3 (17m)
Willem Alberts 6 (32m)
Duane Vermuelen 9 (50m)
Coenie Oosthuizen 1 (2m)
Juandre Kruger 2 (2m)
Siyamthanda Kolisi 1 (5m)

Forward runs 39

SA backs runs (meters made)
Ruan Pienaar 2 (1m)
Morne Steyn 1 (7m)
Bryan Habana 1 (10m)
Jean de Villiers 4 (43m)
JJ Engelbrecht 4 (27m)
Willie le Roux 3 (21m)
Zane Kirchner 7 (65m)
Adriaan Strauss 3 (12m)
Jano Vermaak 1 (0m)
Patrick Lambie 1 (10m)
Jan Serfontein 2 (17m)

Backs runs 29

by Taylorman Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:41 am

I know the plan fa...its just one thats been tried over and over and over, without success. Theres a point where you have to say enough is enough, this aint working. The card in all this is just a red herring. Point is can a side afford to have 7 from 7 down in the backs against NZ. Thats half the team. how can you expect to win on that basis unless you get 8 from 8 in the pack- and we know thats never gonna happen- Read, Cane and Retalick outplayed their opposites at least'

by MMaaxx Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:44 am

http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,,12062_8924780,00.html

Interesting.....

Haven't bothered commenting on this thread as there is no point commenting on a match that was turned into a no contest due to incompetent reffing

by Guest Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:53 am

Stopped reading when I saw it was Barnes. Not surprised Poite is his favorite ref.

by Taylorman Fri 20 Sep 2013, 11:59 am

yeah barnes...comments are as bad as the awarding of the card itself.

by GloriousEmpire Fri 20 Sep 2013, 12:05 pm

Notice he doesn't mention Kieran Reads ridiculous yellow card.

You can always tell when NZ are reaching their intimidating best because it triggers a bleating whinging sound to emanate from the British pundits.

by GloriousEmpire Fri 20 Sep 2013, 12:06 pm

Beauden Barrett 83m
Morne Steyn 7m

Says it all.

by **Biltong** Fri 20 Sep 2013, 12:09 pm

It does, Barret made one break that made up half his meters against 14 men.

by Guest Fri 20 Sep 2013, 12:18 pm

Would rather 1 great run leading to a try than 83 one metre runs. But it was against 14 men so the run shouldn't count as a good run.

by **Biltong** Fri 20 Sep 2013, 12:24 pm

Bismarck du Plessis wrote:In an interview with The Star newspaper, Du Plessis refused to criticise Poite. “I do not expect an apology. I have no doubt that Mr Poite had no ill intentions towards the Springboks or me. It must have been a great occasion for him to have been awarded a Test match viewed as arguably the greatest clash in world rugby. The commentary in the media must have an immense impact on him. I feel sorry for him and I do not want him to be banished from the rugby fraternity or to be viewed as a ‘villain’. I bear no grudges against him and I have no doubt that he tried his best out there on the field,” said Du Plessis. Du Plessis did admit though that both yellow cards came as a surprise to him and he is convinced the Boks would have won the Test if he wasn’t sent off .

by Guest Fri 20 Sep 2013, 12:26 pm

That is how you do it, class!

by Guest Fri 20 Sep 2013, 12:27 pm

Not sure about the last bit of the last sentence though:)

by GloriousEmpire Fri 20 Sep 2013, 12:40 pm

Biltong wrote:It does, Barret made one break that made up half his meters against 14 men.

Seriously, 7 meters in 80 minutes? That takes some doing. For a guy who's being passed the ball constantly.

by Cyril Fri 20 Sep 2013, 12:55 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:You can always tell when NZ are reaching their intimidating best because it triggers a bleating whinging sound to emanate from the British pundits.

Whereas when England beat NZ you went very quiet before returning with this account pretending to be English. That lasted a few weeks before you reverted to type. If it happens again I wonder whether you'll stick around, ghostie Smile

by **Biltong** Fri 20 Sep 2013, 1:09 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:
Biltong wrote:It does, Barret made one break that made up half his meters against 14 men.
Seriously, 7 meters in 80 minutes? That takes some doing. For a guy who's being passed the ball constantly.

you still don't know he isn't an attacking flyhalf?

Wow, who knew.

by fa0019 Fri 20 Sep 2013, 1:20 pm

Taylorman wrote:I know the plan fa...its just one thats been tried over and over and over, without success. Theres a point where you have to say enough is enough, this aint working. The card in all this is just a red herring. Point is can a side afford to have 7 from 7 down in the backs against NZ. Thats half the team. how can you expect to win on that basis unless you get 8 from 8 in the pack- and we know thats never gonna happen- Read, Cane and Retalick outplayed their opposites at least'

I think you should look at it from a non NZ point of view in trying to combat a side with superior skills. Now bring in Johan Goosen, Frans Steyn and Jaque Fourie back into the midfield and I would think it would be an excellent one on one match up.... but with Steyn, De Villers and Engelbrecht it would be a disaster. SA doesn't have the strength in depth of quality ball handlers and distributors. Those they have are currently injured/earning their fortunes abroad.

This isn't KO rugby... its a tournament where you have a home and away leg. If you get more points then your opponent home and away combined then you will have done well right.... well considering both teams beat AUS and ARG by the same margins, bonus points etc.

Meyer may have gone to NZ to win sure but I'm sure he would have taken a bonus point loss with NZ not achieving a bonus try point at the beginning of the match.... thats very much how I saw SA going about things in the first 10-20 prior to the yellow card.

by Taylorman Fri 20 Sep 2013, 6:42 pm

both sides have a chance to sort through the issues from the last match. McCaw may be back for ellis but DC is definitely finished. SA seem to be perpetually waiting for players to return. Goosen has so far illustrated that hes too brittle for this game, most of his short career has been sidelined for injury.

Im positive from two main factors. The ABs are in form. None had poor games last week. And we bat deep in terms of impact from the bench. Barrett, piatau and luatua all came on strong. Theres not a lot to suggest we'll be dominated and th boks wont win from the pack alone. Others have to step up to have a good chance.

by Hood83 Fri 20 Sep 2013, 8:31 pm

Taylorman wrote:
Biltong wrote:Well maybe the Backs will contribute more if our forwards have parity in numbers, eh?
perhaps...though the paritys been there every other test.

I just feel the boks clammed up, reversed everything theyd done all year to get to a very good position against oz, then just decided in the one week to throw all that out the window purely because it was the ABs.

Theyd have been better building on that progress sending it wide wherever possible. I think theyve regressed after some very good work over the last few months and that change of heart was reflected in the lack of confidence in the backs.

Wouldn't that suggest Biltong's point re mentality is correct then, rather than skills? Not my personal view I should say.

by Sponsored content