Thoughts on the RWC

First topic message reminder :

For good or ill the RWC is now considered the be all and end all,Teams build on a 4 or 8 year cycle.
There has never been an unworthy RWC winner,but only 4 countries have done so in 7 attempts
Only 5 actually reached a final,5 of those being the home side including 3 of the winners.

In theory all teams injuries permitting are at full strength,and usually the 8 tier 1 sides are paired
in 4 groups.[roughly]Theory says they will all reach the knockout stages but it seldom happens.

Seeding usually ensures at least 2 SH sides on one side,plus the 3rd SH and England on the other.
That the seeding ensures at least in theory a strong and weak side of the draw and a NH v SH final

In the name of the RWC in that year sides will field weakened teams to save them from injury at
least in theory.Win it and its Honours,medals,then often mass retirement for players/coachs etc.

For the rest it`s jibes,chokers,4 more years,sackings of players /coaches then rebuilding for the next
Outside of the RWC most of the Tier 1 sides plus Italy and Argentina would expect to beat some or
all the tier 1 sides but in RWC`s sometimes fail why?

In theory any team at least of the Tier 1 sides could reach the final and even win it in practice
to date it hasn't been the case,THOUGHTS?

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:His record was a contradiction in terms, look at his record against Australia. Oh, and his record against NZ was 45%

Still good though. Whats Meyer's record v NZ?

come on Guns you know.....

17% I think. Champions elect right.

Haha. Just wanted to see Biltong squirm although based on some peoples criteria PDV was a good enough coach.

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:So in that case Peter DeVilliers was actually a really good coach. A 57% win record v the ABs suggests he was anyway.

Not quite. 5 in 11 so 46% but still decent.

but each situation is different. Given the squad he had and the squad NZ had was 5 in 11 acceptable? I would say I think had white stayed on I think he would have had another 3N and got SA to the SFs of the RWC, but no more.

I think it should have been a little better given the above but he did ok vs. NZ that's for sure.

AUS had his number though and they knew it. They played 12, lost 8 even though AUS were perhaps the weakest of the 3N in the cycle.

Surprising that really. Although that goes to show , the Wily Wallabies are only ever so happy to rain on your parade . Just when you think you're doing good against the All blacks the Wobblies remind you they're also a top team

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:His record was a contradiction in terms, look at his record against Australia. Oh, and his record against NZ was 45%

beat me to it BB

but your retort is strangely similar to mine... you getting chills???

I wasn't but now I have, thanks for that, now I will have to search my house for bugs and camera's

Bullsbok wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:So in that case Peter DeVilliers was actually a really good coach. A 57% win record v the ABs suggests he was anyway.

Not quite. 5 in 11 so 46% but still decent.

but each situation is different. Given the squad he had and the squad NZ had was 5 in 11 acceptable? I would say I think had white stayed on I think he would have had another 3N and got SA to the SFs of the RWC, but no more.

I think it should have been a little better given the above but he did ok vs. NZ that's for sure.

AUS had his number though and they knew it. They played 12, lost 8 even though AUS were perhaps the weakest of the 3N in the cycle.

Surprising that really. Although that goes to show , the Wily Wallabies are only ever so happy to rain on your parade . Just when you think you're doing good against the All blacks the Wobblies remind you they're also a top team

Why you smiling? It is not a smiling matter, it is embarrassing

GunsGerms wrote:Haha. Just wanted to see Biltong squirm although based on some peoples criteria PDV was a good enough coach.

To be honest Guns I think he was. But I do think he was given the job too early. The problem was he didn't know the players well enough. He didn't watch pro rugby avidly, wasn't up to date. You needed someone who could hit the ground running.

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Haha. Just wanted to see Biltong squirm although based on some peoples criteria PDV was a good enough coach.

To be honest Guns I think he was. But I do think he was given the job too early. The problem was he didn't know the players well enough. He didn't watch pro rugby avidly, wasn't up to date. You needed someone who could hit the ground running.

Thats a bit of a dodgy assumption dont you think. I know we all think we're experts on 606 but to suggest a national team coach didnt watch pro rugby avidly before being appointed is reaching quite a lot .Actually from reading Smits Book and various interviews they all seem to agree PDV was actually a great man manager and knew his individual players rather well . Whether he was a good coach is debatable

Bullsbok wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Haha. Just wanted to see Biltong squirm although based on some peoples criteria PDV was a good enough coach.

To be honest Guns I think he was. But I do think he was given the job too early. The problem was he didn't know the players well enough. He didn't watch pro rugby avidly, wasn't up to date. You needed someone who could hit the ground running.

Thats a bit of a dodgy assumption dont you think. I know we all think we're experts on 606 but to suggest a national team coach didnt watch pro rugby avidly before being appointed is reaching quite a lot .Actually from reading Smits Book and various interviews they all seem to agree PDV was actually a great man manager and knew his individual players rather well . Whether he was a good coach is debatable

You read his book?

He openly admits to knowing very little of the players when he first joined.

How he though Butch James was a plank. Matfield was over-rated.

He only knew of players he coached during the U21 years of his. His first thought of captain was Luke Watson... he wasn't even capped at the time. He wasn't ready. He needed a SR team in reality to gauge players.

GunsGerms wrote:Haha. Just wanted to see Biltong squirm although based on some peoples criteria PDV was a good enough coach.

Had the rules not changed on him in 2010 PDV could well have gone on to a better record. The aerial game suited the Bok's perfectly. What he didn't do is adapt to play a more open game from 2010 onwards. In fact Meyer has himself taken 3 seasons to really open his side, only opening up against lesser sides or when they needed to (Ellis in 13). This year is the first time they've opened up against the AB's though sheer choice- though the RC wasn't on the line- would have been interesting if it had been...a true test...but look what happened.

Much has been made of Jouberts reffing in 2011 RWC it is assumed that if he had awarded
kickable penalties France would have won.BUT the fact was the goalkicking by both sides
that day was abysmal nothing seen indicated France would have converted them.

OR if NZ had gone behind it would have acted as a cattle prod and forced them to up there game.In 2003 it wasn't that Umaga was replaced by a player out of position but an attempt
to cover Spencers poor goalkicking at Test level.

The fact is most finals have included a lot of penalties/drops and few tries.a competent
goalkicker a must.