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've been particularly hard on SA rugby over the years, not that that necessarily means anything to anyone but theres a reason for it. SA are one of two or three sides in the world that has the player resources, skills and tournament structures to be consistently competitive for the number one spot.

Since 92 they have largely either stagnated or gone backward when the opportunites for rugby and SA success suggest the opposite should have taken place. No more banishment, larger player base, professionalism and a wealthy fan base, the sxv and Rugby championship.They also retain some of the reasons they are successful- a strong culture in developing uncompromising forward play, fast dry grounds, the Currie cup.

My main issue with SA rugby is purely the regarding of attacking and open rugby, enterprising backplay as a negative, an afterthought, a contributory rather than significant contribution to Bok rugby.

In terms of their results and general ranking of around 2 for most of the period, the Boks must have the poorest represntation of genuine world class backs in the period since 92. Joost, Habana stand clear above anyone else. After that theres the Du prrez's, Fouries, Montgomeries, JDV's. After that and I may have missed a couple theres really not many who could claim a long and sustained career as a world class back.

In that same time several lower ranked countries can claim to have a better supply of world class backs since 92. I havnt done the exercise but gut feel is France, Oz, England and Wales would probably have a better representation of backplay over the period.

What I fingd annoying is the reluctance to invest in backplay despite the obvious potential for it and opportunites available.

When I hear 'that isnt us' that isnt bok rugby' it resonates like nothing else I have encountered in all of sport.

What it translates as to me is "we dont want to change, but we do want to win" and 'we will only plasy and win on our own terms'...'we- are not here to learn this game, we're here to win it, our way'

For me that goes against the very reason we even have sport. Any competitor knows that to be the best you must seek out a competitive advantage, find out what works and what doesnt, find the edge. you see it all the time across the sporting realm.

Bok rugby on one hand says it wants to win, yet stays away from the edge, chooses to stubbornly plough the same worn and mineral depleted fields that it always has, rather than venture out onto the rich green pastures so available to it right next door.

And theres a saying that if you always do what youve always done you'll always get what you've always got.
That is Bok rugby to a tee for 20 years.
My feeling is if we got the Henry's, Smiths and Hansens in there with full reign on resources SA rugby would quickly become successful once the foundations are in place. Up until the oz game SA looked as though they were changing but that all changed and Eden park. And this has nothing to do with the card. Once Read scored any thought of continuing the Oz gained momentum died with it.

Biltongs every comment since the game refers to the card in some way and thats understandable. My point here has nothing to do with the card nor whether we win or lose at Ellis.

My point is not about the last game, its about the last 20 years. SA rugby needs a right big kick up the a!@se if its to improve. And its only people we are talking about here. Change the minds of a few people, get some leverage and the rest will follow.

The SA game currentlyneeds to win by dominating up front- wrong. It needs to dominate up front AND compensate somewhere else to cover off the lower productivity levels of the backs. This is why so many things have to go well for the boks to win the big matches- because they start matches with that handicap.The forwards must not only dominate but they also have to make up for the backs and they sure cant do all that when one is sent off. That is why the card was such a big deal. Not only did they have one short- tthey had already started with reduced output from 7 otyhers- too much to ask for any pack

The question was also asked as to whether NZ would have won in the same position. Here are reasons why they might have.

1 SA play a narrow game. They go up the middle and seek dominance upfront. They dont haqve a fast wide game and even if they had tried NZ have the defensive game to combat it.Combatting a narrow attack is easier with 14 than an effective wide one.

2 NZ play a game based on the variables changing, adapting when things go wrong. Barnes taught us that. What doesnt work here might work over there. SA arent as flexible so their way of capitlising on being a man up is 'more of the same'.

3 The reduction of one player hurts SA more than NZ, particularly if its someonelike DP.Thats because the backs have to step up, and both before and after DP went off they made too many unforced errors- passes, missed tackles etc...they didnt didnt do their own jobs let alone that of the missing player, particularly the backs.

4 NZ overall started the game with the stronger side when looking at the results of recent past so a man down probably goes as much to evening the sides up if anything.

So Ellis is not jujst about keeping their 15, its also about those that let the side down last week stepping up.

You sound like you are trying to convince yourself more than anyone else.

We get it, all the talk about South Africa being a challeger in your minds eye has been washed away in 80 minutes of an uneven contest.

80 minutes now? I thought it was 27 minutes?

The second yellow was legit - so he deserved 10 minutes out, and then read copped a similarly crap decision at 71 minutes and the Boks had a one man advantage for the last 7 minutes...

So all in all I don't really see how you can claim 80 minutes uneven at all.  I think 27 minutes is generous.

The game was 80 minutes long, work it out.

And SA had a one man advantage for 6 minutes when the game was effectively over.

Wake up. Your inability to reason with logic is as obvious as your windups.

its not 80 minutes...its 20 years.
My points above are just as valid as 3 years ago. SA are continuing to clone the same side over and over and over, and largely getting the same results. Nothing on you biltong but that match was also ruined by SA not bringing the side of the past few weeks to the match. The cards a red herring.Poite had a poor match. But so did Pienar, habana, engelbrecht, j du plessis, steyn, alberts, le roux.

Combined, they contributed more to the loss than poite, yet poite is the only discussion point.Why is it only me that can see that? perhaps theres some agreement somewhere than a red card actually does mean the end of the game.

Taylorman I get your points, but I sounds like it wasn't the best contest to be annoyed by SA's lack of ambition. I think pretty much any team would go narrow with a man down, POSSIBLY not the ABs but I don't know.

I think a lot of this blurs the lines between skills and mentality. What it seems you're talking about it a mentality which leads to certain types of players with certain types of skills? Is that a fair summary?

A lot of the 'We just want some competition' stuff I have to say does grate a bit. So do we! It does come across as more than a little patronising, particularly as I cannot remember a single AB fan delighted at the emergence of the England team in 2002-03. Not saying you were bad sports or anything, but be careful what you wish for.

Biltong wrote:The game was 80 minutes long, work it out.

And SA had a one man advantage for 6 minutes when the game was effectively over.

Wake up. Your inability to reason with logic is as obvious as your windups.

How long is it going to be allowed though?

Hood83 wrote:Taylorman I get your points, but I sounds like it wasn't the best contest to be annoyed by SA's lack of ambition. I think pretty much any team would go narrow with a man down, POSSIBLY not the ABs but I don't know.

I think a lot of this blurs the lines between skills and mentality. What it seems you're talking about it a mentality which leads to certain types of players with certain types of skills? Is that a fair summary?

A lot of the 'We just want some competition' stuff I have to say does grate a bit. So do we! It does come across as more than a little patronising, particularly as I cannot remember a single AB fan delighted at the emergence of the England team in 2002-03. Not saying you were bad sports or anything, but be careful what you wish for.

Yes but that stirs up a whole different set of thoughts and feelings.
I think part of the kiwi psyche is we like to see rugby played well wherever it is and since we've done a lot of what we can here we look elsewhere to 'fix things'. Perhaps its why we have so many coaches and players overseas. Not just supply and demand but also the challenge of getting in and applying our game out there wherever and whoever wants it.

SA would be a fantastic challenge for the best of our rugby people but the clash of the status quo vs new thinking would stifle progress so reluctant is there to change. but who are we to say how to play...

Biltong wrote:The game was 80 minutes long, work it out.

And SA had a one man advantage for 6 minutes when the game was effectively over.

Wake up. Your inability to reason with logic is as obvious as your windups.

Sorry biltong but it is you who is not using logic here.

NZ scored a try before any card was issued. There was possibly 10
Minutes in the first half when DP should have stayed on and 30
Minutes in the second half. But the second yellow was valid so he would've sat out 10 anyway. 

So let's say 30 minutes...40-10.

Now, read too copped a ridiculous yellow at 72 minutes. So that gives you just 22 minutes to be aggrieved at. But add the fact that SA had a numerical advantage for the last 6 and its a different complexion. 

Unless you are now claiming there was something other than the first yellow card that was wrong with the performance?

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Biltong wrote:The game was 80 minutes long, work it out.

And SA had a one man advantage for 6 minutes when the game was effectively over.

Wake up. Your inability to reason with logic is as obvious as your windups.

Sorry biltong but it is you who is not using logic here.

NZ scored a try before any card was issued. There was possibly 10
Minutes in the first half when DP should have stayed on and 30
Minutes in the second half. But the second yellow was valid so he would've sat out 10 anyway. 

So let's say 30 minutes...40-10.

Now, read too copped a ridiculous yellow at 72 minutes. So that gives you just 22 minutes to be aggrieved at. But add the fact that SA had a numerical advantage for the last 6 and its a different complexion. 

Unless you are now claiming there was something other than the first yellow card that was wrong with the performance?

Would you not have to also deduct the 17 minutes (true) that was spent setting and re-setting scrums?

So what's that then, 13 mins with 14? Pretty clever of SA to collapse all those scrums. So with our 2 YCs it probably balanced out in the end. What's all the fuss about?

Yep. The actual ball-in-play time when SA were aggrievably at a disadvantage was some tiny fraction of 80 minutes and to some extent is being scapegoated for the SA performance where they didn't achieve the physical dominance they expected and lacked ambition and execution through the back line.

I think plenty of fuss would've been made if the positions were reversed, ebop. I think the comments are largely valid but when you feel aggrieved you don't want to hear them. Like 2007 when the events were raw. Now we can look back on that and say we were the masters of our fate and didn't do enough to win.

Ellis Park will be the rematch hopefully both sides will be happy with. With Nigel Owens who is a good communicator - he doesn't shut up the whole game! - I think we should be fine on that front. I want to see both sides play the way they want to and then we'll see who comes out on top. Big risk playing McCaw but the guy knows how to front up when it's demanded.

All tongue in cheek Kia, SA got shafted. Adds spice to the next game for sures. But I agree with the drum that Tman is banging in that the new SA is the old SA, which is damned difficult to win against but we know what we have to do. Or will they surprise us.

Yep Kia, but if the tables were reversed you can bet NZ would receive no quarter on the argument either.

There would be no Stuart Barnes article telling the world how aggrieved NZ were, there would be no IRB apology, there would be no SA media acknowledgement of the issue. 

The attitude would be that NZ deserved it and any suggestion if wrong doing would be labelled "tin foil hat conspiracy theories". As we found in 2007 and 1995. 

So you know what? SA got one bad call. It happens. They need to get over it. Thy should've found a way to win anyway.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Yep. The actual ball-in-play time when SA were aggrievably at a disadvantage was some tiny fraction of 80 minutes and to some extent is being scapegoated for the SA performance where they didn't achieve the physical dominance they expected and lacked ambition and execution through the back line.

So do you think scrums are separate from the rest of the game? Presumably scrummaging with a weakened pack is an excellent way to knacker them out for when ball is in play.

Taylorman, fair enough. I'd say the money is a bigger draw than being ambassadors of the game, but either way it's not important, it's fair to say NZ coaches and players generally earn it (and then some) wherever they travel to.

There's a lot of time wasted around scrums where if anything players are resting. It's a method of taking pace out of the game to mess around with scrums

Hood83 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Yep. The actual ball-in-play time when SA were aggrievably at a disadvantage was some tiny fraction of 80 minutes and to some extent is being scapegoated for the SA performance where they didn't achieve the physical dominance they expected and lacked ambition and execution through the back line.

So do you think scrums are separate from the rest of the game? Presumably scrummaging with a weakened pack is an excellent way to knacker them out for when ball is in play.

Taylorman, fair enough. I'd say the money is a bigger draw than being ambassadors of the game, but either way it's not important, it's fair to say NZ coaches and players generally earn it (and then some) wherever they travel to.

lets face it...we dont have a lot else to offer. We seem to even be finding new ways not to win a yacht race though...1 km ahead and we still cant win one.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Yep Kia, but if the tables were reversed you can bet NZ would receive no quarter on the argument either.

There would be no Stuart Barnes article telling the world how aggrieved NZ were, there would be no IRB apology, there would be no SA media acknowledgement of the issue. 

The attitude would be that NZ deserved it and any suggestion if wrong doing would be labelled "tin foil hat conspiracy theories". As we found in 2007 and 1995. 

So you know what? SA got one bad call. It happens. They need to get over it. Thy should've found a way to win anyway.

You do understand the British love of supporting the underdog right GE, you've surely lived here long enough to know that if anything or one gets a bit too big we want to give them a good kick?

Normally the underdog has been British, by happy coincidence, but that's what's going on here - we side with the underdog.

Haha, I love your hatred of scrums GE. I've never had the pleasure of scrummaging, but it looks fecking knackering to me! I suppose the fat lads do need a breather though, perhaps you're right  

Taylorman, I've already lauded your excellent Manuka Honey, scourge of the Superbug I seemed to be brewing. I reckon the sailing's yours. Of course, I'd back us to give you a run in conditions more favourable to us i.e. an Armada parked on our doorstep, or something...

Supporting the underdog is a totally different thing to attempting to assassinate the overdog.

Perhaps Stuart Barnes might like to rephrase his article to bemoan the apparent harsh luck SA seem to have with referees and contrast it with their style of play or so forth. I seem to recall he was quite happy to call for blood when Bakkies Botha made an innocuous ruck clean out a few years ago . He was first in line to suggest Shalk burger should be banned for life for gouging...

His preposterous conspiracy theories seem to convey an opinion that 100 years of All Blacks supremacy is either caused by a serious of freakish coincidences and has nothing to do with merit. 

He's crossing a line there and needs to pull his head in because it's getting close to libellous slander.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Supporting the underdog is a totally different thing to attempting to assassinate the overdog.

Perhaps Stuart Barnes might like to rephrase his article to bemoan the apparent harsh luck SA seem to have with referees and contrast it with their style of play or so forth. I seem to recall he was quite happy to call for blood when Bakkies Botha made an innocuous ruck clean out a few years ago . He was first in line to suggest Shalk burger should be banned for life for gouging...

His preposterous conspiracy theories seem to convey an opinion that 100 years of All Blacks supremacy is either caused by a serious of freakish coincidences and has nothing to do with merit. 

He's crossing a line there and needs to pull his head in because it's getting close to libellous slander.

Not here it's not. The only thing proved by that is that Barnes takes a swipe at whoever is top-dog in a situation, not just the ABs. His article is drivel, but if the point is Stuart Barnes is an idiot, you'll have few arguing with you. It's hardly indicative of a wider anti-AB agenda as you seem to suggest - that really is a 'tin-foil hat conspiracy theory'.

As for the rest - 100 years of supremacy is pushing it even for you GE, and I think it's libel or slander isn't it?

Probably closer to 120 years now, you're right.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Probably closer to 120 years now, you're right.

Ha, presume you're not counting 2002-2003? Maybe 118?

I was just saying on another thread how nice it was that England had a new story to tell, given how sick we are of hearing the rehash of the time England won something a decade ago.

It's like candy man, you mention it and it pops up again.

So effectively I must ignore the red card, and the fact that for 58 minutes of the game we were down by 1 man, and yet acknowledge all the criticism the Springboks are getting for how they performed under that pressure whilst acknowledging the All Blacks are so mighty that the card had no effect on their incredible skilss.

Yet the scores were 10-10 when there were equal numbers on the field?

I will accept all the required acknowledgements that we are simply not in the same league as the mighty All Blacks when you guys start earning some humility.

So effectively I must ignore the red card, and the fact that for 58 minutes of the game we were down by 1 man, and yet acknowledge all the criticism the Springboks are getting for how they performed under that pressure whilst acknowledging the All Blacks are so mighty that the card had no effect on their incredible skilss.

Yet the scores were 10-10 when there were equal numbers on the field?

I will accept all the required acknowledgements that we are simply not in the same league as the mighty All Blacks when you guys start learning some humility.

biltong, I don't know why you bother responding to that wummer. He'll just keep changing his argument and make up stuff to annoy you.

It's not worth it mate

In fact you don't even need to learn humility, just be thankful you weren't shafted.

I don't have any problem with 58 minutes. But let's keep it in context, 10 of those were deserved and for the last 10 the springboks had a numerical advantage following an equally absurd yellow card for Kieran read.

I took issue with the "80 minutes" part of the claim, because I make it closer to 20 minutes as I've said.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I was just saying on another thread how nice it was that England had a new story to tell, given how sick we are of hearing the rehash of the time England won something a decade ago.

It's like candy man, you mention it and it pops up again.

Do you mean Candyman or candy, maaan? Haha. Interesting way of avoiding the question. 118 years it is then...118 years that have in no way been as nauseatingly smug and self-satisfied as England's 2003 victory.

Biltong wrote:So effectively I must ignore the red card, and the fact that for 58 minutes of the game we were down by 1 man, and yet acknowledge all the criticism the Springboks are getting for how they performed under that pressure whilst acknowledging the All Blacks are so mighty that the card had no effect on their incredible skilss.

Yet the scores were 10-10 when there were equal numbers on the field?

I will accept all the required acknowledgements that we are simply not in the same league as the mighty All Blacks when you guys start earning some humility.

No no Biltong, Taylorman cleared this up for me the other day. It's not a lack of humility when the ABs do it, it's just 'telling it like it is'.

Hood83 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I was just saying on another thread how nice it was that England had a new story to tell, given how sick we are of hearing the rehash of the time England won something a decade ago.

It's like candy man, you mention it and it pops up again.

Do you mean Candyman or candy, maaan? Haha. Interesting way of avoiding the question. 118 years it is then...118 years that have in no way been as nauseatingly smug and self-satisfied as England's 2003 victory.

It's not smug or nauseating when it's just telling it like it is. It is smug to be still harping on about the time the sun shone on your dogs ass a decade ago as though it's relevant though...

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I was just saying on another thread how nice it was that England had a new story to tell, given how sick we are of hearing the rehash of the time England won something a decade ago.

It's like candy man, you mention it and it pops up again.

Do you mean Candyman or candy, maaan? Haha. Interesting way of avoiding the question. 118 years it is then...118 years that have in no way been as nauseatingly smug and self-satisfied as England's 2003 victory.

It's not smug or nauseating when it's just telling it like it is. It is smug to be still harping on about the time the sun shone on your dogs ass a decade ago as though it's relevant though...

Yeah, that first line there, that's the one. I don't think anyone does mention it, except perhaps to correct you on points like '120 years of dominance'. Either your punctuation is off on the bold or that's one of those 'ad hominem' comments you so dislike.

Can you beat "telling it like it is" with "fact" or "end of" or does the "telling like it is" trump everything?

It trumps everything, apart from Wales, on their day.

Wales 'On Their Day' > Mithril Armour

i'll admit I'm not strong on the humility thing but thats because in this whole discussion we are supposed to accept that the card is the one all and only reason the match was a non contest despite the fact that every AB fronted, including the subs- not one who could be said had a poor match. Whereas at least 7 boks played pratically the entire match either making errors or not contributing to a positive outcome for the boks. Thats 560 minutes of poor play across the 7 if we are counting minutes here.

DPs dismissal did not cause all that on its own and until its acknowledged that the boks contributed just as significantly to this result as the so much more talked about red card then we can talk about humility.

Like the BL performance, the ref is being made scapegoat for the boks own inept performance, and inability to cope with adversity. A bad as Poites one decision was, he had a better game than Pienaar, Steyn, J du plessis and alberts, all who were beolow test quality. If we're handing out report cards, lets hand them all out, the we can discuss humility.

But even with below par performances, in your opinion of the backs, it was only when a man up that the All Blacks opened up their lead. It was very much a contest even if you feel that the NZ were playing better.

No worries no7 1/2

It is what it is. The good thing is the wheel turns.

Does that mean we'll get to see England beat SA soon!

My feeling is since Eden park the boks have shown their true colours. Theyre still not trusting their own abilities as a unit. The backs and forwards were two different entities in this match and caused the loss of confidence in the side. 'Something' happened prior to this match- either Meyer changed the gameplan to revert back to type because it was the ABs or something similar. Whatever it was it caused a meltdown in the backs probably through a loss of confidence,

This is why the Ellis park match should be a concern. Can so many turn their performance around? The ABs will see through the red card and will target those players who are under performing, either individually, or as a unit. Can the boks win? not based on eden park. if they can undo the damage they did with the backs, then they have a shot.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But even with below par performances, in your opinion of the backs, it was only when a man up that the All Blacks opened up their lead. It was very much a contest even if you feel that the NZ were playing better.

the ABs opened up their lead in the first three minutes. It was never headed after that. DP himself was ineffective in stopping Read go over, standing there watching while Read scored under his nose. It is characteristic of the ABs to start building their lead as the match wears on and yes the card was unfortunate but points is not the only consideration here. If key players cannot even do their own basic roles when facing adversity what does that say about the side? Are they up to challenging for the top spot yet? Ellis park will be a good indicator of that.

So I'll leave this for now...perhaps I'm being hard on the boks following a very unfortunate decision. Its certain that the team wont read anything into it as thats pointless. They will be looking at ways to improve their showing at Ellis, certain individuals knowing theyll have to lift their game. That is why I raise these points- some things you can do something about, some you can't. I'm more interested in the where to from here stuff, and so will the boks be, wasting not another single thought on the red card.

Lets hope we're speaking of a very small minority here...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/9181153/Liam-Messam-hits-back-at-Boks-fans-after-abuse

not a good year for Kiwi rugby on the good ol. social media...Gatland cops it for picking a winning side and now this- surprised carter hasnt been abused for selfishly landing so hard.

Frankly I dont read a lot into this. Hopefully Ellis park wont be as bad as this suggests...though it certainly wont be the ABs doing...another good ol' rough and tumble coming up it looks like....excellent. 

Again, Common thread seems to be in the SA rugby mentality and it is sadly all about confrontation and aggression and blind rage being the answer to everything.

I didnt read it that way. Frustration and the ease of accessing the social media and the players these days makes it easy to overdo it...we do it here often enough. Sounds like a one off. Messam shouldnt have to diffuse or make light of the situation cos that will always backfire.

Messam should have just ignored these idiots rather than trying to diffuse it and giving it legs. I've heard of not reading the newspapers for what is written by knobs like mark reason but taking Muppet comments seriously enough to justify responding is stupid.

It started when he pulled comments from his twitter feed about allegations that he had faked his injury. It was picked up by the SA media and read as provocative and the trolls feasted. He's not deserving of having comments about his kid but has to own up to why such comments started.

To me the intriguing thing this match is how both teams finish. Typically the NZ team prides itself on how they finish matches. This year SA has a very strong bench and has been out scoring their opponents. Who will be in front in that last quarter and who will finish stronger. That's what intrigues me.

Todd has picked up a chest injury so now we might well be without genuine seven cover as we can't draft in new players. I hope this does not convince McCaw he needs to be ready. Hansen has gambled big.

Alan, Team NZ is pushing the ABs off the headlines. That is relevant to rugby as if we're prepared to talk about things other than rugby, it must be big. As an Anglo Scot perhaps this is lost on you but I'm afraid until we lose the remaining matches you're going to hear a lot more about it. (Reverse psychology worked well last weekend)

And finding more and more ways to lose isnt helping...Barker was asked directly today if Team NZ is choking like the ABs do? Man they had better win it tomorrow morning. We get port entry this time (apparently thats a bit like winning the coin toss in cricket) as they get to decide where they position the boat at the start.

In terms of Ellis the ABs wont want to be trailing in the last 10 thats for sure. I think Hansen will be wanting as wide a game as is physicaly possible, not to tire the boks, as that wont happen at home, but to get the breaks. The SA backline still looks disjointed to me.