OMFG!! This is why we love rugby!

First topic message reminder :

Thank you South Africa, thank you New Zealand. I need to go and have a lay down now and I'm a neutral. That was the most phenomenal 80 minutes of rugby that i've watched in a long time!

Two teams leaving nothing on the pitch, total rugby, total commitment and some insane tries.

And well done to Nigel Owens for allowing this spectacle to occur. The best reffing display of the year.

                   

yep, its trending upwards as they open up. Seeing boks with the ball in open space is an ominous sight believe me. All these years Ive been happy to see them bang it up with one ups endlessly, because at least we know we always have someone in front of them. Look how they made our outsides look silly when it went wide. Regardless of what we comment on here Meyer has definitely altered the course of bok rugby, largely the same side doing very different things this year. He just needs to work with it, find the right players.

If it gets on the roll I think it will, I think the players will find him.

Let's hope the loss doesn't encourage him back to old ways.

If and when we start losing we'll regret meyer ever arriving on the scene at all but its inevitable. The boks opening up their game has been the biggest untapped resource in world rugby for the last decade at least I reckon.

To be honest, I'm not sure the Boks have made that much progress.  If they couldn't win that one with the odds stacked in their favour, I'm not sure when they will and this loss may have done more damage than good to the Bok players' pysche.  Lets examine this for a minute:

1. Boks are at home, the spiritual home of Bok rugby, where they are very rarely beaten.

2. The Boks didn't have to travel.

3. The AB's had to travel from NZ to Argentina to SA in the space of a week.

4. The game was at altitude.

5. Repeat 3 and add that The Game Was at Altitude.

6. The AB's played 1/4 of the game with 14 men.

As I say, I'm not sure that the Boks have really progressed this year and lets look at their results:

A. SA v Arg 73-13 - an aberration as shown by the following week's result - the Pumas' were clearly overwhelmed by the occassion. Mandela Day.

B. Arg v SA 17-22 - escaped by the skin of their teeth.

C. Aus v SA 12-38 - hailed by some as evidence that SA now the best team on planet, however they struck Aus after NZ had destroyed Aussies' the "New Coach" confidence by beating them 47-29 and 27-16.

D. NZ v SA 29-15 - will be remebered for the sending off, however NZ were clearing dominating the physical clashes and the Blackness had two yellow cards themselves.

E. SA v Aus 28-8 - Australia mentally gone at this point.

F. SA v NZ 27-38 - a big loss on the scoreboard and an even bigger loss mentally in my view.

Dopn't get me wrong, I loved the way the Boks played, and they are clearly the 2nd best team in the world, but it became quite clear in the second half that they couldn't live with the AB's skill level and particularly with their fitness (remarkable given point 5 above).  

I'm quite glad to see the Boks trying an expansive game because I just don't believe they have the players with the skill level to make it work.  Their backs are gifted as all rugby backs should be, however their tight 5 doesn't posses the skills that the AB's have - maybe they'll get there one day but I'm not sure.  I think the Boks trying to play an expansive type of game plays right into the AB's hands.

This isn't meant to be a wind-up, the Boks played magnificiently and they are to be applauded for contibuting to a fantastic spectacle, rather I'm simply trying to sit back and take an objective look at what happened and whether the Boks have progressed as much as people are saying.  Maybe they have and the AB's have just gone up another level?

The Springboks don't have the skill?

 

The Boks didn't lose that game because of a lack of skill, pace or power, they made simple errors that cost them points, plus a couple of last ditch tackles saved two Bok tries.

I'm really not sure why Zane Kirchner would be considered for Bok rugby since that 3rd test versus the Lions. He'll be decent enough for Leinster though.

I could answer you, but would rather not.

Bilt,

Put your reading glasses on and take the rose tinted ones off - what I said was that "Their backs are gifted as all rugby backs should be, however their tight 5 doesn't posses the skills that the AB's have" and I stick with that - the Bok tight 5 don't have the skill level to play the expansive game that their backs can.  What is clear from the way that the AB's play is that in order to play 15 man expansive rugby you need ALL 15 players with very high ball handling skills which is what the AB's have and the Boks don't.

Also, missing as many tackles as the Boks did clearly shows a lack of skill - defensive skill - both Ben Smith's first try and Barret's try were shocking in how bad the tackling was.

So apart from reading my post wrong, can you disagree with the points I made?  Do you really believe the Boks have made progress or have they but the AB's have made even more?

Otagolad, allow me to provide you with some statistics in that game.

Then we'll come back to decision making which were the errors I was speaking of.

If we are talking defensive skills, New Zealand missed 31 tackles in that match versus South Africa missing 35 tackles.

Now does that suggest New Zealand lack defensive skills?

South Africa had 7 line breaks vs New Zealand's 8.

South Africa made 6 offloads in the match whilst New Zealand made 8.

Frans Loue (a forward) made two offloads, Duane Vermeulen made one and Kolisi made one. Louw and Vermeulen were each responsible for an offload that lead to tries.

For the All Blacks Messam made one offload and Read two.

SA ran 958 meters in that game, New Zealand 642 meters.

Our forwards missed 8 tackles between them, the All Black forwards missed 16 tackles.

I suggest the tinted glasses are on your side.

We lost because Steyn kicked a ball out with 9 seconds on the clock prior to halftime, New Zealand took the line out, ran down the left hand side and somehow wirh a melee of bodies at the touch line managed to stay in, the Springbok players for some odd reason thought the ball went out (concentration) and NZ went and scored.

Kirchner kick a ball straight into touch and gave NZ a line out 10 meters from our line, then he also missed the tackle that caused the try.

On another occasion late in the second half he decided to run through two NZ chasers with no support players behind him.

All errors that could easily ave been avoided.

After such a brilliant game it is pedantic in the extreme to nit pick mistakes win matches.It was a mistake letting Le Roux score a soft try while Messam was walking off.Two conversions
missed and dropping the ball when it was easier to score a try those were mistakes.
Take it for what it was a superb game.played by two great sides at break neck speed.
In a very fair and sporting spirit controlled by a Ref who was scrupously fair to both sides.

I don't think kicking out with 9 seconds left is a 'mistake', that is clutching at straws. Missing touch wound have been an error (Stephen Donald, anyone?). I thought quick thinking and skill by the ABs created that try, not a mistake by SA.

A final thought from me, before this match there was all the preconceived stereotypes.
Hoodoo Ground,AB`s can`t handle the High Veldt,Boks will go route one,even all the
Boks have to do.Is sit back and Steyn will kick Penalties/Drops etc.Meyer said before the
Match we are going for the championship.Kicking penalties/driving Mauls trys etc.BUT
that worked on 3 assumptions.The penalties/trys would result from the attempts and third
what would the AB`s be doing all this time.Bok Rugby both at test and super level has
moved with great success away from the Bulls style approach of route one.Even then
they have been putting it thru the hands to.This Bok side is in the main young and is
going to be at some point number one again.

point is ebop kicking it out meant that try wouldnt have been scored. We could surmise that once the line out had taken place if there had been anything left of the 30- seconds left after kicking it out that the ABs would have scored but that is unlikely. It meant the difference between a half time lead or not.

I thik we still would have won the match regardless as for the last 15 minutes no further scores were posted and the ABs were sitting on the lead while the boks were wilting. Had the score been reversed the ABs would have used the time much better.

Otagolad I take you point though Etzebeth is clearly not in that category. Biltongs stats might suggest otherwise but your point is taken. Remember that most of the side were selected under the more limited bok style and need time to adapt, or be replaced if need be. For one I think the altitude thing is a red herring these days. They play it at sxv regularly an for this match it was more the atmosphere/ crowd impact that was more relevant.

My point is that SA are in a transition to this game- they still need to find the players to suit the style and adapt. Theyre good enough already to fend off anyone other than the ABs and with time will improve there as well. Most importantly the shackles have been removed and South Africans have all been given a snippet of what is possible and I think will like it.

It also serves to banish the thuggery aspects or impression that comes with the limited game, nothing like it except for Kolisi's misguided attempt on show yesterday.

I'm encouraging it because I want to see more of these matches and at the real risk of SA becoming a stronger force think its the right thing for SA rugby.








I

TMan,

I agree that the Boks have made progress with the more expansive game, what I don't accept from other posters is that they've made progress overall - the odds were massively stacked against the AB's for the reasons I pointed out and I believe that with 20 to play it was quite apparent who would win as the Boks heads dropped once Barrett scored and they clearly weren't fit enough. I thionk it was Messam who in a sideline interview after the game said that the AB's could see that the Boks were gone with 15 or so to play. I reiterate my view that I don't believe that the Boks have made much progress this year or if they have the AB's have at the least matched them and probably widened the gap.

Now lets stay healthy and give the POMS a hiding on the end of year tour and 3-nil next year and all will be well in the world.

Yes Ive never said theyre the finished article. It could take two or more years to get the right experience/ players and more for the infrastructure to support it but the currrent side should be enough to get them the wins they need to gain the momentum- well it already is and this match will only encourage them, even if theyre down at the moment- they know they contributed to a great match.

For me its a great thing for rugby, dont see the point of the match in Dunedin this weekend but bring it on anyway, the ozzies seem to have found another gear.

Then off to our favourite stalking ground for sure...

Taylorman wrote:... and this match will only encourage them, even if theyre down at the moment...

See, I'm not sure it does give them that much encouragement as they couldn't beat the AB's with just about all the odds in their favour - so maybe they revert to type (I hope not). Surely if you're a Boks supporter you must be thinking how the hell do we beat these guys and then you must start thinking that route one may be the better option. Maybe not, but the mind-games a defeat like this can have shouldn't be underestimated.

Will be very interesting to see the style of play the adopt up North for the NH tour and how they are mentally - a defeat up there might cause all sorts of problems - Wales and France won't be easy.

Otagoland I agree that this will be a big hurdle psychologically to overcome. SA are good enough to win at home. They played well enough to win at home. It's just that NZ brought their A game and they needed to.

I must disagree though with the notion that SA have not improved from last year. Were the players or fans this nervous before last year both at home and away? SA were not struggling with injuries like last year but it was because they were playing a game that looked convincing.

We weren't that convincing against Oz or Argentina but when we needed to score we did and last Saturday was no exception. SA scored a lot of tries this year and scored 4 tries against us. They beat Australia in Brisbane where they had never won before. The fact that SA are still a work in progress in this ball in hand game is irrelevant. There is definite improvement from last year.

That is not to say NZ will be static and SA are on the upward curve. Look at how much we improved in the line out and scrum and negated the rolling maul. SA's improvement brought out the best in us because the players felt under the pump. NZ had thought they could outthink SA previously. It was when SA ran with ball in hand and linked up with the backs that they troubled us. Not through the line out or the maul. The balance is not quite there but when I think of the Dunedin test last year where the game cried out for keeping the ball in hand instead of kicking away possession and releasing pressure and what we saw on the weekend there is huge improvement.

The loss will hurt them as they will think they gave it their all and came up short. But when they see it with cool heads they'll see key moments of the match hurt them. HM will be inevitably thinking how do I beat these guys but you win games by doing the little things right and minimizing your errors. It's about tiny increments in performance. No need for an overhaul.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:Why are the NZ media twisting this into the 'Greatest ever All Blacks win' ?

I would argue that this was most certainly one of the greatest games played in the 21 Century if not the best.  But it was not the greatest victory.  To say this takes away the magnificent part played by the Boks who just scored less on the day.

Apart from the NZ media and one total idiot on here, most of us seem to agree on this. Not a WUM just don't feel the NZ media should report it like this.

What are you talking about? South Africa at Ellis Park is NZ's largest hurdle. To go there, score five tries despite being down to 14 men twice, and win and have that win seal a second consecutive clean sweep of the toughest rugby tournament in the world is NZ's greatest victory.

That doesn't take away from SA at all - it is in fact a huge compliment. I rate this achievement up there with vanquishing the long standing French hoodoo at RWC in 2011.

NZ will no longer to frightened of the physicality of SA at altitude; they have now shown they have the formula to win. The very fact that SA were forced to change their style of game from the one they staunchly persisted with is a rugby cultural victory for NZ's style.

SA v NZ is, and for most of history has always been rugby's showpiece event. Until now it didn't really have a centrepiece match to hang its hat on other than the controversial 1995 final where to be honest the game lacked the style to match the intensity. Well now this match up has given world rugby possibly it's finest 80 minutes, eclipsing the great Bledisloe cup clash dubbed with the "greatest game ever" moniker.

Both countries can be proud to have delivered such a statement and asking the NZ media not to be proud of their victorious part is just plain Tall Poppy syndrome produced by a poster with small man syndrome.

At least the idiot took the bait and knew who he was. Small man syndrome indeed hahaha I wish.


Had Habana remained on field I think it would have been a different score but possibly not result. He had the AB's floundering and his 2nd try was the try of the game. Great he is again utilised to his maximum. I fear for Wales and they will have to be injury free and on top of their game against the Bok.

Wales wont be alone on that count and with oz's recent effort the NH tours will be slim pickings once again I would think.

rainbow-warrior wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:Why are the NZ media twisting this into the 'Greatest ever All Blacks win' ?

I would argue that this was most certainly one of the greatest games played in the 21 Century if not the best.  But it was not the greatest victory.  To say this takes away the magnificent part played by the Boks who just scored less on the day.

Apart from the NZ media and one total idiot on here, most of us seem to agree on this. Not a WUM just don't feel the NZ media should report it like this.

What are you talking about? South Africa at Ellis Park is NZ's largest hurdle. To go there, score five tries despite being down to 14 men twice, and win and have that win seal a second consecutive clean sweep of the toughest rugby tournament in the world is NZ's greatest victory.

That doesn't take away from SA at all - it is in fact a huge compliment. I rate this achievement up there with vanquishing the long standing French hoodoo at RWC in 2011.

NZ will no longer to frightened of the physicality of SA at altitude; they have now shown they have the formula to win. The very fact that SA were forced to change their style of game from the one they staunchly persisted with is a rugby cultural victory for NZ's style.

SA v NZ is, and for most of history has always been rugby's showpiece event. Until now it didn't really have a centrepiece match to hang its hat on other than the controversial 1995 final where to be honest the game lacked the style to match the intensity. Well now this match up has given world rugby possibly it's finest 80 minutes, eclipsing the great Bledisloe cup clash dubbed with the "greatest game ever" moniker.

Both countries can be proud to have delivered such a statement and asking the NZ media not to be proud of their victorious part is just plain Tall Poppy syndrome produced by a poster with small man syndrome.

At least the idiot took the bait and knew who he was.  Small man syndrome indeed hahaha  I wish.


Had Habana remained on field I think it would have been a different score but possibly not result.  He had the AB's floundering and his 2nd try was the try of the game.  Great he is again utilised to his maximum.  I fear for Wales and they will have to be injury free and on top of their game against the Bok.

"Had Habana..." There you go with your very Welsh coulda shoulda woulda, next you'll be telling me that on their day SA would've won it.

Well GE you guys are pretty good at that yourself..

Had we not been poisoned in 1995...
Had Umaga remained fit in 2003...
had Mrs Barnes in the 70s not said, not tonight love, I've got a headache...

Etc etc etc

What is true however that games turn on key moments often as a result of decision making. Habana was red hot in that game, he would have been a considerable threat had he stayed on. Had SA kicked to touched in the last play of the 1st half rather than run out of their 22, lose possession and leak the 3rd try it would have been a totally different game in mindset for both sides.

It's not wrong to say that games swing either way on sometimes single decisions throughout the match.

But these things happen in every game, to every team... Had the boks won I'm sure you could say that Habanas 2nd try was a marginal forward pass by louw... Had it been called forward I don't think many would have complained.

I bet they would've but that's only natural. I didn't have a problem with it and Owens saw movement backwards out of the hand so momentum saw it edge forward. It was like a short version of the Barrett pass in the 2nd test against France and many thought that was forward.

The try I'm not sure about is after Messam was binned and he was still walking off. Presumably Owens had called for time off and I'm not sure whether time was called back on. Were they entitled to take a quick tap? Not a gripe against the try, just curious about the protocol for these types of situations as it's happened before.

forget about the coulda woulda shoulda.

Habana was injured, and that is that, Willem got injured and that is that.

We played rugby, for that I am forever grateful.

That is all I ever wanted. A fair contest against two opposing teams, no matter it be SA vs anyone or Timbaktoe against Canada.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I bet they would've but that's only natural. I didn't have a problem with it and Owens saw movement backwards out of the hand so momentum saw it edge forward. It was like a short version of the Barrett pass in the 2nd test against France and many thought that was forward.

The try I'm not sure about is after Messam was binned and he was still walking off. Presumably Owens had called for time off and I'm not sure whether time was called back on. Were they entitled to take a quick tap? Not a gripe against the try, just curious about the protocol for these types of situations as it's happened before.

In the event of a yellow card, play cannot resume until the player has left the field. I'd have to check if he had actually gone or not, and when Owens called time on. But frankly fair try play on I say. I'm more dubious on the Louw pass to Habana the more times I see it the worse it looks. By as we learned in 2007 once a ref had called try you're unlikely to change his mind.

Biltong wrote:forget about the coulda woulda shoulda.

Habana was injured, and that is that, Willem got injured and that is that.

We played rugby, for that I am forever grateful.

That is all I ever wanted. A fair contest against two opposing teams, no matter it be SA vs anyone or Timbaktoe against Canada.

Well Im with you on this one Biltong. I was critical of the boks at eden park because I'd thought they had abandoned the open game altogether but faith was completely restored with this match. For this match they got out and played rugby, not just went for some win regardless of the quality. For a long time during the match bok fans were treated to some real excitement and I think now they have a taste of it theyll want more.

The lessons for Meyer were also much more obvious...the fitness required, the defensive re-alignment needed, option taking, individual skill levels- all things he can work on directly. For all that they still managed four tries and only an 11 point diff against a side that also played one of their best matches for ages, made few mistakes etc. and have been doing this stuff for years.

The woulda couldas can wait. The NH tour is perfect for building on this and a test against different opposition, grounds etc.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I bet they would've but that's only natural. I didn't have a problem with it and Owens saw movement backwards out of the hand so momentum saw it edge forward. It was like a short version of the Barrett pass in the 2nd test against France and many thought that was forward.

The try I'm not sure about is after Messam was binned and he was still walking off. Presumably Owens had called for time off and I'm not sure whether time was called back on. Were they entitled to take a quick tap? Not a gripe against the try, just curious about the protocol for these types of situations as it's happened before.

In the event of a yellow card, play cannot resume until the player has left the field. I'd have to check if he had actually gone or not, and when Owens called time on. But frankly fair try play on I say. I'm more dubious on the Louw pass to Habana the more times I see it the worse it looks. By as we learned in 2007 once a ref had called try you're unlikely to change his mind.

And there are typo's and Kiwi typo's. Stop ranting GG, stay still for a while and let the hook get removed;) 

GloriousEmpire wrote: I'm more dubious on the Louw pass to Habana the more times I see it the worse it looks. By as we learned in 2007 once a ref had called try you're unlikely to change his mind.

wrong. this is the point of the TMO nowadays. have seen more tries not allowed for forward passes in the last 2 month than in the last 10 years. mentionning 2007 (again) make your point even more ridiculous.
the Louw Pass was beautiful, perfect timing.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I bet they would've but that's only natural. I didn't have a problem with it and Owens saw movement backwards out of the hand so momentum saw it edge forward. It was like a short version of the Barrett pass in the 2nd test against France and many thought that was forward.

The try I'm not sure about is after Messam was binned and he was still walking off. Presumably Owens had called for time off and I'm not sure whether time was called back on. Were they entitled to take a quick tap? Not a gripe against the try, just curious about the protocol for these types of situations as it's happened before.

In the event of a yellow card, play cannot resume until the player has left the field. I'd have to check if he had actually gone or not, and when Owens called time on. But frankly fair try play on I say. I'm more dubious on the Louw pass to Habana the more times I see it the worse it looks. By as we learned in 2007 once a ref had called try you're unlikely to change his mind.

The Louw pass was technically forward from point to point but its no more forward than many of those at sxv due to momentum and I wouldnt want those to be pulled up by tmos as theyve been happening for decades

The hands showed a backward movement. The rest is physics.

rainbow-warrior wrote:The hands showed a backward movement.  The rest is physics.

Agree.

whocares wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote: I'm more dubious on the Louw pass to Habana the more times I see it the worse it looks. By as we learned in 2007 once a ref had called try you're unlikely to change his mind.

wrong. this is the point of the TMO nowadays. have seen more tries not allowed for forward passes in the last 2 month than in the last 10 years. mentionning 2007 (again) make your point even more ridiculous.
the Louw Pass was beautiful, perfect timing.

the tmo process would have disllowed the 2007 try as it wasnt momentum, it was propelled forward in a deliberate manner to catch up with the runner. Louws was pure momentum.

Biltong wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:The hands showed a backward movement.  The rest is physics.

Agree.

Me too, pass was good. T-R-Y time.

Taylorman wrote:

whocares wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote: I'm more dubious on the Louw pass to Habana the more times I see it the worse it looks. By as we learned in 2007 once a ref had called try you're unlikely to change his mind.

wrong. this is the point of the TMO nowadays. have seen more tries not allowed for forward passes in the last 2 month than in the last 10 years. mentionning 2007 (again) make your point even more ridiculous.
the Louw Pass was beautiful, perfect timing.

the tmo process would have disllowed the 2007 try as it wasnt momentum, it was propelled forward in a deliberate manner to catch up with the runner. Louws was pure momentum.

indeed and that was my point. back then TMO were not used to look at a the build up of a try.

Messam hadn't left the field. Pretty sure about that. what im nit syre is whether owens called back time. No problem with the Louw pass.

not the sort of thing I bother about when we win. Had we lost what were the areas? One was definitely the exposure out wide that allowed habana a straight line run at the line twice- Smith too far back to be effective in the chip over try. Not a lot else other than being caught out wide so many times- not often the case with playing SA.

That just showed their tactics were stretching us out wide with continuity and keeping the ball in hand and linking up with the backs. The other tactics of set piece move we had brushed up on.

I think Hansen should clarify the situation. We've had quick taps taken Before against us. The result is irrelevant. We don't want the situation to happen in the future when it does prove the difference. Pedantic maybe but Id like our players to know what to expect. We were caught napping in that play.

I thought the pass was forward to be honest but whatever.
Foster said something at half time I think about giving them opportunities out wide and how they had talked about it at half time.

Am I the only one that thinks it would be better if SA focussed on hard out smashing of us rather than running it all the time? I like the diversity of rugby styles.

Just depends what you want out of your side...I just think that 8 smashing hard out is never going to cover the other 7 not smashing hard out...flawed logic? Somewhere in there is the answer, but I think you end up with what we have in the end...

nganboy wrote:I thought the pass was forward to be honest but whatever.
Foster said something at half time I think about giving them opportunities out wide and how they had talked about it at half time.

Am I the only one that thinks it would be better if SA focussed on hard out smashing of us rather than running it all the time? I like the diversity of rugby styles.

The ball did go forward yes, but they don't look at that. They look at the position of the hands, as momentum can take the ball forward. They hardly overturn those though, as they would need clear evidence that the person intended to let the ball go forward.

nganboy wrote:I thought the pass was forward to be honest but whatever.
Foster said something at half time I think about giving them opportunities out wide and how they had talked about it at half time.

Am I the only one that thinks it would be better if SA focussed on hard out smashing of us rather than running it all the time? I like the diversity of rugby styles.

It is all about balance. YOu need not worry, we only added going wide to our bow and using the ball more than just kicking, the styles are still very much different

Is it a case that the All Blacks defence was compressed expecting a tight SA game? As SA evolve their game they'll gain the maturity to vary the attack. Wide, close, wide,  by reading the defence from 9/10/15 and taking the correct option. That's the element that was missing for me. Steyn went from robotic kicking to robotic flinging it wide. It became like clockwork, step step ...decoy runner... Wide pass behind. With Kirchner kicking just three times, he's no izzy or Ben smith and he continually ran into trouble.

I was watching Kirchner every tie he got the ball, and predicted what he was going to do by just reading his facial expressions.

He has two dead give aways.

If he doesn't drop his head, you know he is going to kick, if he drops his head, he will tuck the ball under his arm and run.

He doesn't pass from deep and thinks he can sidestep.


Foolish.

I kind of agree with Otagolad. Far too early to be talking of a seachange in Springbok rugby. Their tactics next month will be interesting.

goneagain theyre already doing it. Its not the finished article but that performance vs NZ and the two vs oz were chasms apart from any they have played in recent years vs those sides. The change is already set in motion and will continue in the NH- no doubting that.

I hope so. I didn't see their game against Australia. But, as satisfying as the victory was on Saturday it was always going to be a tall order to not only beat NZ but also deny NZ a BP with that totally gung-ho style. I find myself agreeing with Alan, that the BP situation created a somewhat artificial background for the match.

It was OK for 60/65mins but then SA rolled over and let the AB tickle there tummys.

I think the NH teams will teach both these teams a thing or two over the next couple of months or so! 

 

But would you say that an expansive gameplan is best executed by those that 'naturally' play this way and have honed the skills from an early age? Might be a stretch to assume that 4 months in and an NH tour under their belt will result in expansive champaign rugby. Not saying that's what you or others are saying. But we've been playing like this for decades.

And that's 1 through 15