WHY?

The Boks as there supporters are keen to point out were the leading side pre 1981 with the only side having a winning
record against all sides.Post 1992 they have a 33 % record versus the AllBlacks and about 50% versus Australia.I know
I have posed this question before more or less BUT still don`t get it.I know there is a player quota an Apartheid in reverse
if you will.BUT the pool of players as demonstrated recently can still produce a very competitive side playing in any style
they wish.Familiarity with other teams,not having home or away series travel factors it`s got to be more than that.
Australia in the Pro era with Union retaining there best players instead of going league have certainly improved to a
huge extent.NZ depth etc is legend but there dominance since tours ceased RWC s aside I cannot understand.
I don`t have the answers but would like our Boks friends here to give there opinions ,this isn`t gloating or a wum.
My respect for SA Rugby is nearly as much as for Nz`s

Sorry i may be missing totally...but What question are you asking?

We were the biggest people pre proffesionalism, now everyone is as big as us and our direct style became less effective.

There hasn't really been a quota on our rugby team for quite some time, but I think the pressure is still there to select on racial lines.

Alan

Not sure where you are getting your stats from. Pre 92 SA and NZ met 37 times, SA won 20, NZ 15 with 5 draws. SA had a win rate of 54% vs. NZ (not 33%). Try "Pick & Go"... a kiwi website which is tip top for these things.

Against AUS it was 21 wins from 28 matches (win rate of 75%).

Those rates are now 39% vs. NZ and 56% vs AUS overall.

How many times do we here NZ fans saying... "we have a winning record against every rugby nation on earth". quite often. Even the NZRU mention it now and again when speaking of their "brand" ABs.

Anyhow is stating fact gloating or is it just stating fact?

The win record was only overtaken in 1999 anyhow.... and I proved a few weeks ago on another blog that the ABs statement is a little biased due to the large number of games played in the last 20 years compared to the previous 70. Its weighted heavily to the last decade or so.

To show how biased they are... SA had a 75% win rate over 70 years vs. AUS, from 1992 -2011 the record is 46% wins but the overall win rate has plunged from 75% to 56% (a full 19% points drop) even though AUS win rate from 1992-2011 is only 52% themselves. All due to the no. of games played over the last 20 years skewing figures..

There are many reasons why SA had a better record in the old days anyhow... one of the biggest was a gross home-away advantage

up until 1992 here are the games played home vs. away for the tier 1 nations

NZ 128 vs. 127   (1.01 H/A ratio)
SA 112 vs. 62     (1.80 H/A ratio)
AUS 131 vs. 125   (1.05 H/A ratio)
FRA 208 vs. 222   (0.94 H/A ratio)
ENG 219 vs. 212   (1.03 H/A ratio)

see an odd one out in the above countries???

A number of factors.

1. Politics
2. No evolution of our gameplan
3. conservatism
4. coaching is too rigid.
5. we are too proud to learn from others.
6. no synergy between unions, SARU and Politicians to do what is best for SA rugby.

Simple really

I love the SA physcial approach to the game and i hope we NEVER lose that.

Everyone knows that facing the Boks is the biggest physical challenge in the game...and all players want that experience.

The pre-apartheid stats are misleading because matches against SA were invariably played with restrictions on participation and frankly, home referees cheated like Wayne Barnes with an impunity card. 

Frankly I think their win rate now is probably more representative.

GE

Ah yes the home referees issue but there is one problem with your statement.

SA won 64.3% of its home games up to re-introduction.... but 64.5% of their away games.

Now everyone else saw a marked improvement in their home record compared to their away record....

NZ 77% vs 66% (+11%)
AUS 44% vs 37% (+7%)
FRA 62% vs 41% (+21%)
ENG 57% vs 39% (+18%)

so given that SA had a -0.02% H/A deficit compared to the +14% ave. improvement of the their leading rivals it would suggest that in fact the SA referees were significantly more fair, arguably benefitting the tourists more then the hosts.

Its the problem when you say things without any evidence, hence why your comments tend to be laughed off.

In terms of participation.... can you give me a list of the players who SA refused to accept over the years. I am sure there are a few Maori's but the ABs of that era did not have the same ethnic make-up of today, that I do know... and come the 80s that was not a valid excuse given SA were capping colored players by then.

Not sure where you get your stats FA100 ,but by my calculations Nz v SA.Tours Nz 7.5 1.1
RWC 3-1-2.,3Ns 37,25-12,4N`s 4,4-0 .total 51 games 35 .1,16 since 1992.my calculator says
31.37 %.grand total 91,50,6,36.total is 39 .86%.
Heavily weighted?thats on straight matches win/loss basis the 33% figure was whay I`d read
here.In fact the Boks record is slightly worse AGAIN this not a BOAST I genuinely cannot
understand the vast difference 54% and 31.37% between the 2 periods.
Records 1921-8 were equal,only period 1937-49 was Boks record superior1956-81 it was
equal.AGAIN that is not boasting just facts stringing figures together proves nothing.
AGAIN state respect SA Rugby very much indeed.

Interesting comments Fa1000,but straying from my point,in 1928 Jimmy Mill and George
Nepia,Bert Cooke also didn't Tour not sure why.1949 Brownie Cherrington,K.DArnold,
Vince Bevan,J.B Smith,Doc Peawai,possibly several more of Maori Blood big era for
there Rugby.1960 possibly a reserve Hooker and Waka Nathan. CARE and HART had at
least two tours banned one when the Team was about to board the Plane 1967 side was
picked for SA.1970 would probably have had more than 2 Token Guest Whites for want of a better term.
Referees may well have been more impartial post 1981, but certainly was not the case
pre that.Both SA and NZ were homers in the period the Ref in the final 1976 test match
even admitted the fact .
BUT again this has nothing to do with my original post.

emack2 wrote:Not sure where you get your stats FA100 ,but by my calculations Nz v SA.Tours Nz 7.5 1.1
RWC 3-1-2.,3Ns 37,25-12,4N`s 4,4-0 .total 51 games 35 .1,16 since 1992.my calculator says
31.37 %.grand total 91,50,6,36.total is 39 .86%.
Heavily weighted?thats on straight matches win/loss basis the 33% figure was whay I`d read
here.In fact the Boks record is slightly worse AGAIN this not a BOAST I genuinely cannot
understand the vast difference 54% and 31.37% between the 2 periods.
Records 1921-8 were equal,only period 1937-49 was Boks record superior1956-81 it was
equal.AGAIN that is not boasting just facts stringing figures together proves nothing.
AGAIN state respect SA Rugby very much indeed.

Alan

Here's my breakdown which I got from kiwi site pick & go.

Up to 1992 (not inc.)

Played 37
SA 20 (54%)
AB 15 (41%)
Dr   2  (  5%)

Since 1992 (inc.)

Played 50
SA 14 (28%)
AB 35  (70%)
Dr  1    ( 2%)

Overall

Played 87
SA 34 (39%)
NZ 50 (57%)
Dr 6    (  7%)

emack2 wrote:Interesting comments Fa1000,but straying from my point,in 1928 Jimmy Mill and George
Nepia,Bert Cooke  also didn't Tour not sure why.1949 Brownie Cherrington,K.DArnold,
Vince Bevan,J.B Smith,Doc Peawai,possibly several more of Maori Blood big era for
there Rugby.1960 possibly a reserve Hooker and Waka Nathan. CARE and HART had at
least two tours banned one when the Team was about to board the Plane 1967 side was
picked for SA.1970 would probably have had more than 2 Token Guest Whites for want of a better term.
Referees may well have been more impartial post 1981, but certainly was not the case
pre that.Both SA and NZ were homers in the period the Ref in the final 1976 test match
even admitted the fact .
BUT again this has nothing to do with my original post.

Knew you would be able to help us with the figures. I agree, there were players who were probably asked to step aside but how big a diff they would have had is debatable and as you say, the numbers are quite small. Its not like the ABs today.

I recall you saying George Nepia is one of your all time favourite players no?

Just a quick question Alan but your original question... is it why the boks win rate have fallen dramatically over the pro and amateur era?

Well, when you play against policemen who double up as world championship contending boxers, and WP flanks instead of world class opposition, for ten years, then you are going to trail opposition when you are re-introduced to the world game.

Perhaps the first 4-5 years Kingraf but not since then. From 1992 they were already playing and winning super rugby against the very best.

The Currie Cup was probably more competitive then the 5N at the time. It was probably the most competitive competition in the world outside of the RWC.

Also, calling the current "quota" system apartheid in reverse is wildly inaccurate - PW. Botha would have had a baby if there was only one Afrikaans player in the Starting XV, amd yet this quota system seems incapable of siphoning any one other than Mtawarira. Insulting really, as you seem to suggest everyone of colour in the team had a little "help"

Its difficult Kingraf, but the system does chaps like Habana no favours.... those who are really good enough are often pushed early and its an image difficult to budge.

Is Kolisi really the best alternate backrow sub in SA? Brilliant in defence yes but wouldn't someone like Deysel be a better alternative... defence, carrying, lineout. He's only 21 so its not a problem but the image will be so difficult to budge.

JP Pietersen is one of the best now, but in 2006 he was a plank. Stefan Terblance would have ran circles round him, he got <40 caps, he should have had 100.

Alternatively - is Jan Serfontein honest-to-goodness the best Centre back-up in the country at the moment? But because he is white he was picked on potential, while Kolisi could only possibly have been picked due to his skin.

It is of course true that some choices may be political, but its very tiring hearing insinuations that every white dud was an honest mistake from the selctors while every black dud was just a quota choice.

I agree

We don't know if Kolisi really is that good in Meyer's eyes and there will always be questions because of it. Its an awful system and it hurts primarily the ACI players.

I agree.... Serfontein has also been fast tracked... but it is a position of weakness for SA. With Frans Steyn injured and Fourie in Japan there are not many others holding their hands up.

I said this on a seperate thread but the quota system, in its current guise, is engineered to fail. But questioning every ACI who doesnt end up like Makhaya Ntini, Amla, or Habana isnt the way forward. Mfuneko Ngam, the cricketer spoke about how constantly trying to prove himself essentially destroyed his body. ACI's cant just be good, they have to be great otherwise doubts will forever surround them... Consequentially burnout is inevitable.

The biggest problem with the Quota situation is the cloack and dagger $h1t, and dishonesty we have to listen to.

Nothing is on the up and up.

It brings about more doubt than anything else.

I think Kolisi is good, but I am not sure he is the best alternative.

Problem is, there will always be doubt when you consider that back row has always been one of our traditional depths of talent.

But then, I must say I haven't thought about quotas for some time and try to ignore the possibility alltogether.

fa0019 wrote:GE

Ah yes the home referees issue but there is one problem with your statement.

SA won 64.3% of its home games up to re-introduction.... but 64.5% of their away games.

Now everyone else saw a marked improvement in their home record compared to their away record....

NZ 77% vs 66% (+11%)
AUS 44% vs 37% (+7%)
FRA 62% vs 41% (+21%)
ENG 57% vs 39% (+18%)

so given that SA had a -0.02% H/A deficit compared to the +14% ave. improvement of the their leading rivals it would suggest that in fact the SA referees were significantly more fair, arguably benefitting the tourists more then the hosts.

Its the problem when you say things without any evidence, hence why your comments tend to be laughed off.

In terms of participation.... can you give me a list of the players who SA refused to accept over the years. I am sure there are a few Maori's but the ABs of that era did not have the same ethnic make-up of today, that I do know... and come the 80s that was not a valid excuse given SA were capping colored players by then.

Whereas what you did was to create a strawman by ignoring half of my argument.

I just love the accusations of home refereeing only flowing to one side.

It has very little credibility.

Well GE given that SA did better away then they did at home given its unique amongst their peers it would suggest that in SA the test referees were very impartial, to the point of actually favouring the tourists.

Or they were easy beats at home, propped up by corrupt refs.

thats just disrespectful.

Gentlemen,to clarify Refs.pre 1980-1 tended to have there own interpratations,and there was
SOME political interference.When a Ref after making a biased decision which gives the Boks
a Home series win,instead of a draw[1976].Commenting on his decision to the Tourists
about it."You`re going Home,I have to Live Here" make your own conclusions.In 1949
the Boks were very strong,BUT so was the All Black sides.The Boks played there power
game based on the Set pieces,especially a power house Scrum.The Bok 3-4-1 Scrum
Refs were very hot in infringements in this area .The All Blacks had adopted but not
mastered the dynamics and were outmuscled even by relatively weak provincial sides.
Dr.Danie Craven and Bo Wintle helped them fix it.by the end of theTour they could
mix it with the best.The AllBlacks Game post 1946 was based around the KIwi`s style
running game of the North Island.The South Island Otago game of the Vic Cavanaghs
the "Long Ruck"even Lineouts were used to create it in Dynamic[Ruck] and Static[Maul].
A 2-3-2 loose Scrum and al the backs ploys developed around it they could both deliver
either quick ball or be Driven.For an example of the driving Maul it was on the 1987
pattern.Problems there were three fold SA refs didn't allow the Rucks to develop,ball
from Scrums were not developed.BUT most importantly the Scrum halves were inferior
all the best ones left at home not qualified.Boks used aggressive defence crash tacklers
standing flat t o the off side line which went thru centre line out back foot scrum.
They were heavily penalised for offences not picked up at home different interpratations
But most important of all apart from Hennie Mullers marauding Goal kicking,Okey Geffin
was a dead eye dick.Bob Scott usually a great Goalkicker un accountably couldn't kick
them.They lost the series 4-0 till then the gap had been one game,1949 in the opinion
of Sir Terry McLean a Great if one eyed Journalist.IF all Maori`s had been available and
Vic Cavanagh appointed Coach the AB`s at best would have had shared series.
1928 with Nepia,Mill,and Cooke 3 of the stars of the 1925 side may have been enough.
1960 only Pat Walsh would have been a certain to be picked and one player would`nt
have made a difference.1960 there was very little between the sides so close a single
charged down kick mean`t the Series.In my opinion the 1967 side under Freddie Allen
would have been the first to win a series in SA injuries permitting.They finally overtook
Boks in 1996 NOT 1999.
I mean`t when writing the thread post 1992 and the relative decline and when describing
Apartheid in reverse for the quota system .It was just a way of describing a process that
I have no knowledge of. Or understanding of the process of selections involved and DID
NOT mean to imply any political overtones.If I have given offence then I freely APOLOGISE.
Refs on the main were NOT corrupt or POLITICALLY motivated it was just a matter of different
ways of interpretating the laws differently and that was world wide.Only in comparatively
recent times has that been fixed.

Biltong wrote:A number of factors.

1. Politics
2. No evolution of our gameplan
3. conservatism
4. coaching is too rigid.
5. we are too proud to learn from others.
6. no synergy between unions, SARU and Politicians to do what is best for SA rugby.

Simple really

Again, I agree with Biltong here, but would add that since the late 70's and 80's NZ (and to an extent Oz) has gone to a full 15 man approach where before we were primarily farmer bill based forwards- most of the AB greats from 60's backwards were forwards, with a few backs chucked in now and then (just for Alans sake).

SA has largely stayed true to its forward dominated roots.

The better use of the wider open spaces on better drained fields these days lends to the open game and sides like Oz and NZ exploit it best.

For this reason SA's quality of backplay simply isnt up there where it needs to be- illustrated by comparing the number of tries scored by backs and the quality of the SA backs compared to the other two over the years since 92.

Nice try Tman but not particularly accurate,Boks period 1951-58 played running rugby in the
Backs.There WORST pre 70`s period when NH caught up and briefly overtook the SH,after
the great tour 1951-2,they drew a series 1955 v Lions 2-2,lost 3-1 1956 v ABs.and 1 draw 1
loss versus France the first side to win a series there.Only when they reverted to type were
they again successful.Unbeaten NH Tour bar Barbarians last match of tour,AB`s 2-1-1,Lions
either 3-1 0r 4-0.Aftermath for the AB`s post 1949 period 1950-65 played the "otago game"
10 man style winning rugby losing only to the Boks in a series in that time.Freddie Allen
played orthodox 15 man rugby 1966-8,But had the best Pack in World Rugby[arguably].
Certainly the input of THE Best forwards Coach ever Vic Cavanagh JR.from 1970 the AB`s
tried running Rugby without the Forwards base required.Results Lions loss 1971,Boks 1970.
and 76,and THE Worse tour of Europe by results ever 1972-3 the last major one.

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:A number of factors.

1. Politics
2. No evolution of our gameplan
3. conservatism
4. coaching is too rigid.
5. we are too proud to learn from others.
6. no synergy between unions, SARU and Politicians to do what is best for SA rugby.

Simple really

Again, I agree with Biltong here, but would add that since the late 70's and 80's NZ (and to an extent Oz) has gone to a full 15 man approach where before we were primarily farmer bill based forwards- most of the AB greats from 60's backwards were forwards, with a few backs chucked in now and then (just for Alans sake).

SA has largely stayed true to its forward dominated roots.

The better use of the wider open spaces on better drained fields these days lends to the open game and sides like Oz and NZ exploit it best.

For this reason SA's quality of backplay simply isnt up there where it needs to be- illustrated by comparing the number of tries scored by backs and the quality of the SA backs compared to the other two over the years since 92.

I'd disagree. Looking back NZ's game initially revolved around a version of total rugby. Early on the game developed around penetrative loose forwards, based on the wing forward position and the backline. Given we had an 8 man backline we had a big advantage. The game was different in that the rules were different, drop a ball and it was a scrum, full backs were largely a defensive position etc. The teams of the early 20th centry and twenties were attacking teams with great backlines.

This changed in the 40's 50's following the change in scrum laws in the 30's and the crushing loss to the bok's in 37. The boks smashed us up front, particularly in the scrum. As a result many rugby minds set out to mimic them. The kiwis returned after the war, having won the interforce competition against foreign teams made up of union and league players, with substandard forward pack. The fact that a team that was worn out lost an internal tour (when the Charlie Saxton's was invalided out of the game for good) was used as an argument to play 10 man rugby. Which we did for the 50's. We had a brief interluded in the 60's, when the Captain of the Kiwi's (Fred Allan) became coach and advocated running rugby. Then returned to dour rugby for much of the seventies. It was the move of the generation of players who had played under Fred Allan into coaching that saw the return to total rugby, along with a growing influx of players with a league background and/or Island roots).

That's my take anyway.

I'm only really commenting on 87 forward really here.

The Hart, Henry, Trapp era's with Auckland from 84 took the game to a new level in my opinion. Two years later it permeated to the AB's- 86 was the end of the old, baby blacks the start of the new and weve not looked back since.

We've had some poor years since but usually after a fairly good innings.

My point re the backplay is list the top 20 backs from all 3 SANZAR countries- towards the bottom of the SA list you'd be scratching to find any significant on the international scene comparatively- try scoring stats etc.

But thats whats good about this change theyre going through. The skill levels of the forwards will increase in terms of handling and tackling, and the backs will start scoring tries more.

If it was just down to superior improvements in back play... how come the boks success rates vs. England from amateur to pro have also dropped. England have stayed very similar to their roots from period to period.

Prior to 92, England had a 22% win rate vs. the boks, since then its been 37% ( a +15% jump).

You could use the same for other countries too. Ireland had a 10% win rate prior to 92, since 92 its been 27% (+17% jump). France had a 16% win rate, since then its been 42% (+26% jump).

We have very contrasting sides in NZ, France, Ireland and England... yet all have significantly improved their win rates vs. the boks from pro to amateur times.

There are many reasons for this.

England has much improved win rate due to their squad of 2000-2003. They had something like 7 wins on a trot against us.

Ireland hasn't been to SA for a decade. their wins were all at home.

France has outplayed us many times, much like New Zealand and Australia have done, purely because they play attacking rugby.

Cant agree more biltong...and attack is king these days. Whether you agree with it or not the IRB has ensured thyat the rule changes are always designed to open the game up and this continues to have an adverse impact on SAs style, which is to deliberately close game down in terms of open play.

That is why SA's %s have dropped- they swim against the tide. Look at the ariel antics of 2009- SA took advantage of the tackle ball rule- the ball carrier being at fault in the tackle. So the IRB changed the rules. Now its favourable to the side with posession. SA ignored that change and ploughed on with the same kick and pressure tactics, wondering why they were losing more.

That is not smart rugby and explains the number of losses.

Just like how eden park 2010 signalled the winds of change for how to play SA I believe Ellis park has signalled another in the other direction.

Been thinking really the whole game has changed introduction of League style defences,no
rucks in the classic form.Before you had forwards and backs each had there own jobs man for
man marking plus the cover defence or classic scrum defence.Tries were created by creating
the extra man ,close,scissors,reverse scissors,full back in,blindside winger in,half break etc.
or Forward set plays like the "Wallabie","Wyllie",or "Willie Away".At one time in NZ Rugby
direct tries from the set pieces were considered impossible.The Kiwi`s may have been lightweight forwards by the best AllBlacks standards but there record of only two losses was
better than some AB touring sides to NH.Today every player is expected to clean out breakdowns,tackle anyone etc.When you here people talk about Forwards with handling
skills or players like Quade Coopers handling tricks.You`d think they had just been invented
players like Johhnie Smith were doing them better in 1946.Forwards at least NZ and French
have always had ball handling skills most other nations too.Fiji v Maori Test Matches 1958
tended to be torrid affairs with great handling skills 1-15 on both sides for example.