Heyneke Meyer take a bow.

First topic message reminder :

If you were going to tell me that South Africa would rack up 958 running meters against the best team in the world I would have laughed in your face.

If you were going to tell me that the pace and power of the South African attack would cause 31 missed tackles by New Zealand, I would have found that equally entertaining.

If you told me an expansive game by South Africa would be an invitation to New Zealand to counter from turnovers and errors I would have agreed with you.

In 2011 Pieter de Villiers was called in front of the South African Sports committee in lieu of the Rugby world Cup preparation, during the interview he was asked why South Africa played so much within themselves and why did they not embrace a holistic approach to rugby.

Pieter de Villiers answered with a simple “They have a fear of failure”

In my view fear of failure has plagued South African rugby for some time. I fondly remember a game at Murray field during 1998 when Bill Mclaren described the running of Pieter “Slap Chips” Rossouw akin to that of a Gazelle on the African plains. During that same out bound tour, South Africa put such a hiding on the French in Paris that the local patrons booed their own team off the field and gave the South Africans a standing ovation.

Prior to the isolation era Springbok rugby reigned supreme, and it was largely due to the natural physique and the lifestyle attributed to Afrikaners at the time. Professional rugby has negated the natural physical advantage South Africa has had for so long, with professional rugby players now having the best facilities, equipment, coaches, fitness and strength instructors at their disposal.

The need for more intelligent play, more possession and guile in attack has now become a pre requisite for teams to triumph on the international stage. For too long I have listened to South African supporters saying we do not have the skills to play expansive rugby, for far too long we have sold ourselves short in the skills department.

Expansive rugby does not mean you move away from your core strengths, our core strengths will always be the mainstay of any professional rugby team, that is a given.

However, it is the mind set that needs changing. Compare a defensive strategy based game plan to that of a lab rat in a controlled environment where he runs through a maize to find a piece of cheese. It is inevitable that the rat will find the cheese, no matter how long it takes or how challenged he is in the intelligence department.

Having teams launch wave after wave of attack, affording them the opportunity to probe your defensive line relentlessly for 80 minutes will eventually result in a defensive breach. It isn’t rocket science to understand that.

Yes, we lost the test this weekend, however the mind set of going for gold meant that the shackles have been broken, the fear of failure was suppressed and rather than see a team intent on playing a kick and chase strategy and a defensive setup, South Africa ran the ball, for almost 1000 meters, a statistic in itself that almost defies belief.

Yes there were mistakes, it is inevitable that when you have only played expansive rugby for four months, that you would not be as polished as you will be after doing it for 10 years. But the important issue here is that the change came. The importance of this mind shift cannot and should not be underestimated, we played rugby, positively and adventurous beautiful rugby.

You may be critical and look at all the negatives, the fact that we ran out of puff in the last quarter, the fact that we conceded too many turn overs, the fact that we missed so many tackles, the fact that our line out went to shambles in the last 20 minutes.

But what you cannot ignore, is the absolute delight the game has brought to your senses, the mistakes can be corrected, the techniques can be worked on, our defensive system is not yet set up to scramble on the counter and will need restructuring.

Heyneke Meyer has shown us what we can do, he has shown us that we do indeed have ample skills in the team to run tries in from deep or close against the best team in the world, but most important, he now needs to carry this forward. There is no stepping back from this methodology, he has a responsibility to continue the growth of this team, a few personnel changes will improve those odds.

Ultimately if we can push the All Blacks this hard, the rest of the world must be quivering in their boots.

This game reminds a bit of the recent England football game. Hodgson was pushed in to an attacking style . So for the first time he played an attacking style. And they actually played ok for the first time in years....

The acid test will be when both nations in these respective sports don't have to win or win big. How will we play then?

Results are very important to me.

However what some are missing here is that although still not happy with losing, this is the first time in more than a decade where SA ignored their fear of failure and played positive rugby.

It is our lack of positive rugby that has been our downfall for the past decade, the fact that we don't try and outscore teams such as New Zealand and Australia.

By throwing off the shackles of impending doom and just going for gold, Meyer has shown that as a coach he is prepared to chance his arm.

This is a significant step towards changing the mindset with which we play rugby.

YEs we lost the match, but apart from the result, there is a hell of a lot of positives here.

Like Taylorman suggests, the AB's had to play a near perfect game, they had to use every opportunity they had to outscore us, we made plenty of mistakes, a clear indication that we were so focused on attack that our decision making were poor, our tactical kicking were poor, and our breakdowns were poor.

Add fitness to that, and there is a vast amount of improvement still to come.

There is no such thing as a moral victory, that is BS, this is neither a moral victory nor a real victory for us.

It is however the first proof that for the first time in a very long time we have a coach that is prepared to use the arsenal outside.

mystiroakey wrote:
The acid test will be when both nations in these respective sports don't have to win or win big. How will we play then?

That's a very good point. I don't recall exactly (so may be wrong), but I think the pivotal moment in the match was when SA were 15-7 up and they opted to kick a penalty to touch inside the NZ 22. From memory it was a very kickable penalty for Steyn and would have seen the Boks out to an 11 point lead. Could have been a very different game.


Ignore that! Just checked, the score was 15-14 at that point.

I have not read every post on this thread but rugby is an entertainment business. a dour 9/6 win does not attract anyone but the committed fan, a game like the last ab . sa game is a far better spectacle - indeed one of the best games I have ever seen congratulations to both sides for making it so.

goneagain wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:
The acid test will be when both nations in these respective sports don't have to win or win big. How will we play then?

That's a very good point. I don't recall exactly (so may be wrong), but I think the pivotal moment in the match was when SA were 15-7 up and they opted to kick a penalty to touch inside the NZ 22. From memory it was a very kickable penalty for Steyn and would have seen the Boks out to an 11 point lead. Could have been a very different game.


Ignore that! Just checked, the score was 15-14 at that point.

For me I would have taken the kick and gone for the win first. Once got a bit of a buffer and continuing to apply pressure then NZ have to chase the game. That's not negative that's winning rugby. Positive rugby isn't running it from everywhere - NZ don't do that - we kick the snot out of the ball when we need to and run it where we see opportunities. We create pressure by having immense defense and knowing when to counter attack.
What SA needed to do was improve their scrum and lineout mauling to put NZ under pressure more

Hi,Biltong I`ve read your comments and those of King Graf with interest both having somewhat diverse opinions.To his credit Meyer decided he wanted the 4Ns which mean`t
as I suggested prematch mean`t an open game.
The assumption that the win for the Boks was there if they just went the take the points
route is debatable.
It is to the credit of BOTH sides they came to play Rugby not just play negative safety
first stuff.The All Blacks HAD the points they COULD have adopted the risk nothing
approach from kick off.Again whether they could have won in the situation is debatable
but 4 tries under those strictures was unlikely.
The All Blacks don`t have to be at there most accurate to win.BUT there is no better
side than them for capatilizing on mistakes.They also like to try and strike either just
when the otherside has scored or just before/after half time.
This Bok side is growing in confidence and not that far away for becoming a great side
upholding an illustrious tradition as one of the best Nations ever to play this wonderful game.

Hi Alan, it seems many of my compatriots believe we could have won if we had played our old style, I have shown the stats and proved that our style is not good enough anymore. And in lieu of that I don't believe we would have won playing our old style.

I am not interested in the springboks continuing in their old style, we will always just be also rans if we continued on that path.

We need an overhaul, even if we do lose a few to the AB's. What Meyer is trying to do now will have a much bigger impact on our future than most think.

We have always had the forwards and the backs, our backs just were never used to their full potential, I for one want to see us moving towards a future where we use our backs.

Problem is, most SA supporters are only concerned with instant gratification, and they don't care about the evolution of our game.

Hence very few agree with me.

nganboy wrote:
For me I would have taken the kick and gone for the win first. Once got a bit of a buffer and continuing to apply pressure then NZ have to chase the game. That's not negative that's winning rugby. Positive rugby isn't running it from everywhere - NZ don't do that - we kick the snot out of the ball when we need to and run it where we see opportunities. We create pressure by having immense defense and knowing when to counter attack.
What SA needed to do was improve their scrum and lineout mauling to put NZ under pressure more

That was pretty much my thinking nganboy. SA had already shown they could cause problems out wide and indeed scored tries already. That was the perfect time to calm things down a bit and try to apply a bit more pressure in a conventional way. It wasn't perhaps the crucial moment I recalled it was, and I'm certainly not saying that a reversion to type was needed, but with 60ish (?) minutes of the game to go there was no need to go for broke at every opportunity.

goneagain wrote:

nganboy wrote:
For me I would have taken the kick and gone for the win first. Once got a bit of a buffer and continuing to apply pressure then NZ have to chase the game. That's not negative that's winning rugby. Positive rugby isn't running it from everywhere - NZ don't do that - we kick the snot out of the ball when we need to and run it where we see opportunities. We create pressure by having immense defense and knowing when to counter attack.
What SA needed to do was improve their scrum and lineout mauling to put NZ under pressure more

That was pretty much my thinking nganboy. SA had already shown they could cause problems out wide and indeed scored tries already. That was the perfect time to calm things down a bit and try to apply a bit more pressure in a conventional way.  It wasn't perhaps the crucial moment I recalled it was, and I'm certainly not saying that a reversion to type was needed, but with 60ish (?) minutes of the game to go there was no need to go for broke at every opportunity.

Admittedly it is easier to say in hindsight they should have shut up shop.

But they will learn more from having the match to review and to learn when it is ideal to attack and when it is ideal to consolidate.

The biggest point out of all this is that SA has shown they blew everyone else out of the water this season, but this game showed them the weaknesses, Meyer will be able to take a lot out of this game, whereas the other games this season taught him little about our weaknesses with this style of play.

Not really a criticism Biltong, only an observation. As you say, another learning point.

Biltong wrote:

goneagain wrote:

nganboy wrote:
For me I would have taken the kick and gone for the win first. Once got a bit of a buffer and continuing to apply pressure then NZ have to chase the game. That's not negative that's winning rugby. Positive rugby isn't running it from everywhere - NZ don't do that - we kick the snot out of the ball when we need to and run it where we see opportunities. We create pressure by having immense defense and knowing when to counter attack.
What SA needed to do was improve their scrum and lineout mauling to put NZ under pressure more

That was pretty much my thinking nganboy. SA had already shown they could cause problems out wide and indeed scored tries already. That was the perfect time to calm things down a bit and try to apply a bit more pressure in a conventional way.  It wasn't perhaps the crucial moment I recalled it was, and I'm certainly not saying that a reversion to type was needed, but with 60ish (?) minutes of the game to go there was no need to go for broke at every opportunity.

Admittedly it is easier to say in hindsight they should have shut up shop.

But they will learn more from having the match to review and to learn when it is ideal to attack and when it is ideal to consolidate.

The biggest point out of all this is that SA has shown they blew everyone else out of the water this season, but this game showed them the weaknesses, Meyer will be able to take a lot out of this game, whereas the other games this season taught him little about our weaknesses with this style of play.

You guys didn't blow Scotland out the water though BB... were in fact rather fortunate!!!

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

goneagain wrote:

nganboy wrote:
For me I would have taken the kick and gone for the win first. Once got a bit of a buffer and continuing to apply pressure then NZ have to chase the game. That's not negative that's winning rugby. Positive rugby isn't running it from everywhere - NZ don't do that - we kick the snot out of the ball when we need to and run it where we see opportunities. We create pressure by having immense defense and knowing when to counter attack.
What SA needed to do was improve their scrum and lineout mauling to put NZ under pressure more

That was pretty much my thinking nganboy. SA had already shown they could cause problems out wide and indeed scored tries already. That was the perfect time to calm things down a bit and try to apply a bit more pressure in a conventional way.  It wasn't perhaps the crucial moment I recalled it was, and I'm certainly not saying that a reversion to type was needed, but with 60ish (?) minutes of the game to go there was no need to go for broke at every opportunity.

Admittedly it is easier to say in hindsight they should have shut up shop.

But they will learn more from having the match to review and to learn when it is ideal to attack and when it is ideal to consolidate.

The biggest point out of all this is that SA has shown they blew everyone else out of the water this season, but this game showed them the weaknesses, Meyer will be able to take a lot out of this game, whereas the other games this season taught him little about our weaknesses with this style of play.

You guys didn't blow Scotland out the water though BB... were in fact rather fortunate!!!

Fortunate?

You know my feeling on how the breakdown went in that game FA.

shows how important Frans Louw is to the team thats for certain!

Argie in Argie, a blip?

Argentina was a poor performance for a number of reasons, Sa never set up their momentum ball, they went wide without earning it, and didn't work hard enough in the breakdowns, Argentina did front up, so you can't negate that.

Again the balance is an issue.

We played with a bit of a one track mind this season, attack, attack, but not with much thought.

All I know as an england fan is that - SA is one mighty tough nut to crack. I wish we were playing them again soon. I would love to see how we match up!

Argentina are a good side

Yuu had to expect a reaction from the ARG players after they got thumped by 70 points. They put in a performance we know they are capable of that day.

Mystir, England is also on the way up. they ambushed New Zealand last year and beat them, it is a shame everything these days are one off tests.

I wish we could have more test series like we had against England last year. One off tests doesn't provide me with the same satisfaction as a series.

I have no idea where england stand at the moment, and i dont think any fan does tbh.

BUt we are more positive than we have been for a long time.

I am still trying to figure out what happened to England against Wales this year.

That was a very poor performance by them.

What happened to them?maybe they believed all the hype about themselves.Wales after that
first game versus Ireland.Slowly dragged themselves back into contention the Scotland match
was the turning point.Perhaps the worst match I`ve ever sat thru nothing but penalty after
penalty.A World Record and another half dozen missed as well diabolical BUT they knew to
win the 6Ns they needed to score points.This they did writing off any team especially Wales
before a ball is kicked is plain stupid.
Tours as in the traditional sense where your provincial sides can soften them up while your
stars hide in training camps like Lions 2009.
Or the 1960`s style 2 or 3 tests plus 3 provincial matches?3 test series in Nz vthem you
would probably lose 2-1 or 3 zip.At home currently possibly2-1 either way would be my
betting.NZ in NZ is a huge ask less than 40 losses at Test level in 110 years at home [SA]
AB`s win rate is about 46%

The issue for England is that their strength in depth in terms of forwards is no longer as strong as it was.

10-20 years ago if one guy got injured his replacement would still be better then most in the 6N. Its not the case for England anymore. Against Wales they had no Alex Corbisiero, Hartley was coming back from injury and only on the bench, Lawes was played at 6 as Morgan was out as well as Croft.

It meant they played a weakling in Joe Marler (the beard doesn't hide his insufficiencies) against the foremost scrummaging tighthead in world rugby, Tom Youngs who is a luxury player at the set piece and they didn't have 1 single ball carrier in that pack.

To his credit Robshaw seemed to be a one man army for much of the match, the rest of the forwards were no where to be seen.

It wasn't a case of them just not turning up... they were simply torn apart upfront.... much like they were in 2011 by Ireland.

Had they put out their full strength pack it would have been different, at least a contest. If you grew up in the late 80s/90s in the UK you would be amazed how the tables have turned. Remember them holding out 6 vs. the NZ 8 in 2003??? That must feel like an prehistoric now.

In the early 90s the England pack weighed about 1st heavier per man then the rest of the 6N. Nowadays, England's pack and especially their front five is probably shy of their traditional 6N rivals bar France (who always play a mobile backrow). Its not always about size but when you see Wales, NZ & SA well above 900kg and England being significantly less it shows a problem in the side... not the least because England's game relies heavily on the set piece and a big pack to negate their lack of a traditional openside.

We just got battered on the day by wales. Rugby isn't just about the individuals- its about the sum of the parts on the day. Maybe the NZ game flattered us a bit too much , but we have to just accept wales crushed us and are a good outfit(especially against us).

I think everyone should admit that wales are a much better side than the 8 loses against Aus on the spin(or whatever it is) and in truth almost matched them in every game - just didn't have any bottle to get over the line!!


Wales will never be rated against the SH, but they can be very good!!

Yes Mysti,I remember it well BUT a few minutes at the end of a game is one thing. Try that
versus even the AB 2003 pack which was lightweight by there best standards.Imagine 2 Red
Cards in the first 5 minutes.Instead of 2 Yellows in the last few minutes for professional fouls
because your side was being torn aside by there backs.

Alan

I don't think you can say they were being torn to shreds.... they only scored 1 try and that was off a breakaway kick chase. The rest of the time to be honest the 22 wasn't being bombarded all the time and NZ were giving as many penalties away as England were... it was a very tight match, England took their chances... NZ with Spencer on the other hand couldn't hit a barn door if it had dollar bills on it.

The weather also was dreadful.

Anyhow, what people say is true, individuals, weight etc it doesn't mean victory/defeat... but if you look at the best they have a front five about 580+, a pack over 910kg and they still have players in their backrow signficantly more mobile then England currently offer.
AUS have got used to being smashed upfront... so they pick ultra mobile backrow players and it allows them to compete at least until recently. Imagine if they played with three tackling blindsides like England do??? They'd be taken to the cleaners.

Fa1000 thinking of the first match 2002 and England were hanging on for dear life at the end
[just watched on you tube].Hard to tell but if Andrew Merthens had played full 80 in both
matches England may have lost both.

We're talking of different games Alan. perhaps why the confusion.

Twickenham 02 and NZ 03.

02 - very competitive game even though many ABs were left at home. Wasn't one sided although I do recall England were hanging on in the end... just like NZ were hanging on in 05 when England lost by 4 and the last play was an England scrum on NZ 5 metre line.

Whoever gave Spencer the duties during his AB career was either delusional or arrogant.... they either somehow lived in a dreamland that Spencer was a decent place kicker or were so deep into their own backside that they believed no matter how rubbish Spencer was, NZ's superior running game would bring them through... i.e. "we'd score so many tries that our 60% rate would still be enough compared to their 8 odd penalties".

True Carlos Spencers Super kicking record was good but at Test Level rubbish in the second
game.Wilkinson[I think]scored all the points for England the helter skelter game drove me
mad.3Ns 2003 50 points each in away legs back to back by the home legs they`d been worked out narrow victories in the home games.Kronfeld best 7 in world rugby went to
NH,Cullen and Merthens fell out with Mitchell post injuries to both.Leon Macdonald was the
kicker but a centre he wasn't and against Larkham?Umaga apparently was fit but not matchfit.
A 2003 final between the two sides would have been very interesting indeed.

Biltong wrote:Hi Alan, it seems many of my compatriots believe we could have won if we had played our old style, I have shown the stats and proved that our style is not good enough anymore. And in lieu of that I don't believe we would have won playing our old style.

I am not interested in the springboks continuing in their old style, we will always just be also rans if we continued on that path.

We need an overhaul, even if we do lose a few to the AB's. What Meyer is trying to do now will have a much bigger impact on our future than most think.

We have always had the forwards and the backs, our backs just were never used to their full potential, I for one want to see us moving towards a future where we use our backs.

Problem is, most SA supporters are only concerned with instant gratification, and they don't care about the evolution of our game.

Hence very few agree with me.

I agree and think the Boks wouldnt have won that match no matter what they did. The ABs have all bases covered as they did at Eden park. The beat SA in the tight game and they beat them in the open game, with more gas in the tank at the end in both.

In both matches, you couldnt say a single AB played badly. In both matches, several Boks did not play well.

Given those circumstances you arent likely to win.

If SA had have closed shop, neither of Habanas tries would have been scored because those were the two that came as a result of Meyers directive to open the game up- they gave Habana space and when he gets that, hes odds on to score.

Meanwhile the ABs would still have found a way through and beat the boks to the line both when the defence was spread and tight- missed tackles (Barrett's and the try before half time) and when tight- Messams try when they left only Steyn of all people covering that side of the breakdown on the tryline, and Savea able to pick the ball from the breakdown and run 50 to score untouched.

Im not advocating that the Boks go helter skelter with this approach either and the usual strength of the forwards and good use of kicking needs to be brought in to level things out. The ABs have fine tuned their 'open' game for years now and its now a matter of striking while the irons hot.

Meyer played it this way in a desperate effort to win the series by getting the 4 tries and at 60 minutes he was on track, so to be criticised for that with so little experience at this mode of play is a bit sheepish.

It is the going forward of this side that makes the way they played compelling, not the result.

Biltong wrote:Results are very important to me.

However what some are missing here is that although still not happy with losing, this is the first time in more than a decade where SA ignored their fear of failure and played positive rugby.

It is our lack of positive rugby that has been our downfall for the past decade, the fact that we don't try and outscore teams such as New Zealand and Australia.

By throwing off the shackles of impending doom and just going for gold, Meyer has shown that as a coach he is prepared to chance his arm.

This is a significant step towards changing the mindset with which we play rugby.

YEs we lost the match, but apart from the result, there is a hell of a lot of positives here.

Like Taylorman suggests, the AB's had to play a near perfect game, they had to use every opportunity they had to outscore us, we made plenty of mistakes, a clear indication that we were so focused on attack that our decision making were poor, our tactical kicking were poor, and our breakdowns were poor.

Add fitness to that, and there is a vast amount of improvement still to come.

There is no such thing as a moral victory, that is BS, this is neither a moral victory nor a real victory for us.

It is however the first proof that for the first time in a very long time we have a coach that is prepared to use the arsenal outside.

I dunno Biltong. Two things come to mind. Firstly, Meyer had no choice. If he played conservatively and lost, he looked like a stubborn buffoon. If he played conservatively and won, but not enough to win the competition it would've looked like a face saving compromise. Where is his ambition when he doesn't need four tries and a margin to win the war? Was it playing with no fear? Or playing with nothing to lose?

Secondly, I don't buy this "four months of running rugby" stuff. South Africa were their old selves for most of this competition and we saw exactly the same flawed attempt at an expansive game last year in Dunedin when NZ posted a similarly convincing win.

If SA are serious about high tempo rugby it has to come out of the closet and not be played as a kind of bluff hand when the winner is already cashing out.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Biltong wrote:Results are very important to me.

However what some are missing here is that although still not happy with losing, this is the first time in more than a decade where SA ignored their fear of failure and played positive rugby.

It is our lack of positive rugby that has been our downfall for the past decade, the fact that we don't try and outscore teams such as New Zealand and Australia.

By throwing off the shackles of impending doom and just going for gold, Meyer has shown that as a coach he is prepared to chance his arm.

This is a significant step towards changing the mindset with which we play rugby.

YEs we lost the match, but apart from the result, there is a hell of a lot of positives here.

Like Taylorman suggests, the AB's had to play a near perfect game, they had to use every opportunity they had to outscore us, we made plenty of mistakes, a clear indication that we were so focused on attack that our decision making were poor, our tactical kicking were poor, and our breakdowns were poor.

Add fitness to that, and there is a vast amount of improvement still to come.

There is no such thing as a moral victory, that is BS, this is neither a moral victory nor a real victory for us.

It is however the first proof that for the first time in a very long time we have a coach that is prepared to use the arsenal outside.

I dunno Biltong. Two things come to mind. Firstly, Meyer had no choice. If he played conservatively and lost, he looked like a stubborn buffoon. If he played conservatively and won, but not enough to win the competition it would've looked like a face saving compromise. Where is his ambition when he doesn't need four tries and a margin to win the war? Was it playing with no fear? Or playing with nothing to lose?

Secondly, I don't buy this "four months of running rugby" stuff. South Africa were their old selves for most of this competition and we saw exactly the same flawed attempt at an expansive game last year in Dunedin when NZ posted a similarly convincing win.

If SA are serious about high tempo rugby it has to come out of the closet and not be played as a kind of bluff hand when the winner is already cashing out.

Did you actually watch these matches?

Last year we scored 23 tries in 12 matches
This year we have scored 39 tries in 9 matches

The Roar analyst Scott Alan compared the efficiency of the nour nations' attacking nous this year.

We compared like for like very favourable with NZ, in fact the statistics were uncannily similar.

Last year was a different story.

I get the feeling you should watch SA rugby with a little more attention.

I think SA are a little flattered to be honest by a couple of drubbings of weakened opposition that skew that statistics. Sure they scored more tries, but they conceded more too. At the end of the day what makes this 6-0 RC clean sweep for NZ any more of a victory for SA rugby than last years 6-0 RC clean sweep for NZ? It's those statistics that SA should be primarily concerned with, not running meters or tries scored.

I want SA to be the prized scalp, not fall back to the rest of the pack celebrating pushing NZ close and scoring a few tries.

You'll just have to wait and see then, won't you.

The proof will be in the pudding.

Biltong wrote:You'll just have to wait and see then, won't you.

The proof will be in the pudding.

I agree. Ive been waiting years for the Boks to expand their gameplan and thats clearluy what theyre doing. Meyer will already have assigned resources to bring the fitness levels and defence strategy for this type of game up as a priority so obvious were the potential gains in those areas. The bigger boys are gonna feel it from here in and some will need to rethink their approach to the game.

Meyer will be getting a lot of yes sirs, anything you want sir down the lines now after that epic match- purely because it lit up world rugby and they will be wanting more of it.

Thats why I reckon all out was so vital- the match had a stunning impact on both the possibilities and deficiencies of this side.

I doubt very much that this side will lose to anyone other than the ABs in the next 12 months- the case so far this year. They might drop one in the AI's by being caught out before they put some improvements in but even then I doubt it very much.

I can`t be bothered to do the stats BUT the Boks haven't exactly lost a lot of matches recently
since end 2009.To anyone except Nz and Australia now matter they`ve played. I looked at there overall stats recently and was astounded how close Australia had come to them.
England and France have think 12 and 11 respectively,Scotland 5,Ireland 4 and Wales only
1.The latter surprised me but stats don`t mean a lot do they. In NZ the 1937 Boks is lauded
they lost only one match in Nz.by 7 points and won a series by 7 points and 11 points difference.The 3rd test they won 17-6 only 11points BUT 5 tries NZ went considered it the
biggest calamity ever.They never lived the fact down the Boks won a series in NZ something
the AB`s never managed to achieve in the Republic during touring days.That same team
leaked 26 points when being defeated in Australia by New South Wales.You`d be surprised
how many touring sides lost to them and they actually toured successfully under there own
name.
What it comes down to does it matter to you IF you win by how you win .Sadly since the
Amateur days for whatever reason.The Boks win stats haven't been as good than formerly
BUT they still haven't been easy beats for anyone.ALL sides have gone thru troughs and
peaks.For Nz it was 1935-56,1970`s,1991,1998,2009 .most RWCs but they went back to
basics and turned it around again.IF you want to win matches you play to your strengths
and cover up your weaknesses.These days because of video analysis that is harder to do.
There will come a time when the AB`s go onto a trough again too,or other teams will
catch up.It is the nature of the beast,anyone want to bet on the Boks doing a clean sweep
in Europe?

Since 2010 Boks have lost 15, the AB's 4.

Thats a huge discrepancy- probably the largest you will find in any 4 year period- certainly in the pro era.

Sure its 7 to us, 6 to Oz and one to Scotland that they should never have lost (the ABs put 40 points on them the next week).

They also could have lost the 2011 AB side in SA had NZ taken their top side. The fact that they are now losing to both Oz and NZ on a regular basis suggests theyve slipped- until this year that is.

They also had 8 wins over Wales (3), Ire (2), Eng (2), Scot (1),
Arg (1), Ire that were 5 or less, meaning theoretically the match was in the balance through to full time.

In contrast we had two wins less than 5 points, the majority over well before full time. So agree Alan, the way you win is very important- particularly if you are putting the match away with 10-15 or more minutes to go. Thats where the big win %'s come from cos it removes all the iffy things- refs, cards, injuries. the AB's have built a side that covers all those potential issues.

So the Boks are clearly well behind NZ both in head to head and in comparison with other nations- again- probably more than at any time before- hence my comments that the gap is widening- because stats clear show it is.

And I'll put a bet on the Boks sweeping Europe...

Careful Taylorman! Someone will pop up and claim Argentina are part of South Africa in a minute if you make that kind of claim!

GloriousEmpire wrote:Careful Taylorman! Someone will pop up and claim Argentina are part of South Africa in a minute if you make that kind of claim!

Be very careful as someone may also then misquote you and then try and make out you have an issue with all foreigners in doing so!!.

"And I'll put a bet on the Boks sweeping Europe.."


who wouldn't if the odds are good enough(which i doubt!!)


They aren't playing England so wheres the threat  

Hadn't checked who they're playing mysti but after that match they're the team to watch the progress of.

NZ must be heading for a fall soon surely cos it doesn't get better than what we have at the moment.

I see Jane is back in the squad. Another that never let's the side down. The current form guys like Ben smith and read is outstanding. The consistency of the two week in and out for months is simply freakish.