Western Mail need a history lesson also lets clear this up.

Well done Wales on the win.

But then we look at the Western Mail this morning all the sharks that circled the Welsh players and Management now want to take the win as some sort of moral victory for them,sad i know, but the article from Simon Thomas was particularly condescending, he alluded to the fact that the Welsh players achieved yesterday what Cliff Morgan, Gareth Edwards, JPR Williams and Phil Bennett never did in a Welsh jersey, they beat the mighty Spring Boks.

Yes as Lions tourist they did but never for Wales, the great Cliff Morgan played South Africa once yes once it was a loss admittedly but to rub it in that the current welsh crop have done it after after ten attempts under Warren Gatland is just plain poor journalism I'm sure Cliff would have beat them after ten go's surley.

Now my biggest bug bear, Gareth Edwards,JPR Williams and Phil Bennett only every played South Africa once for Wales and all in the same game in 1970,i thought it was in 1969 but scrum.com has it as 1970 so i must have been wrong, they didn't lose this game they actually drew 6-6 and the further twist in the tale is they drew because the game was called off at half time due to the river Taff bursting it's banks and flooding the pitch, through out the first half the pitch was becoming a swamp to the point the teams unrecognisable due to the muddied jerseys.
This famous Welsh team of the 70's never crack at the Boks because of the Apartheid and i think we would all agree if they did Wales overall record would be a bit better than it is.

So when all we heard from the BBC all week on how Wales only ever won once over the Boks my blood began to boil because it seems pretty ill informed to just dismiss what a great team Wales had in the Golden era when the reality is politics stopped our best shot at it.

Don't worry too much about the past though. The future is seldom interested.

Just because the Lions beat them in 74 it doesn't mean the boks were for the taking.

Had they played them the same number of times maybe they would have got the odd win but the boks still would have been stand out ahead. They were easily the most dominant team of the era. They were 1 kick away from making history in 1981 against NZ and had they done so they would have been easily the greatest of all time... now probably just the greatest of their era.

why?

because take out the lions tour where they lost 3 tests and they lost only 4 other tests between 1970 and 1980 in 30 tests.
They beat NZ 3-1 in 1971 and 3-1 in 1976 as well as the Lions in 1980 3-1 (albeit all home series)

So during a decade when Wales also never beat NZ... the boks beat NZ 6-2 over the decade. It would suggest the record probably would have remained unbeaten or at the very least dominant.

One team that SA did play quite a bit was France who were reasonably strong during the decade and after Wales, their closest 5N rival. SA played 7 in the era, won 6 and drew 1 (inc. a series 0-2 victory in 1974), losing zero.
Wales did have a dominant record over the French too, winning 7 out of 11.

Its one thing that grapes me a little. I read John Inverdale the other day said that NZ and Wales were the 2 greatest rugby nations in the world and I thought... dude, you know nothing about rugby if that's the case. Maybe for someone brought up in the British Isles and hasn't travelled much perhaps but otherwise a ridiculous statement.

and the 74 team... it wasn't just Welshmen in the side contrary to assumptions. They fielded 6 players in each of the 4 tests (of which they won 3, drew 1). 4 in the backs, 2 in the pack... that is crucial mind as the pack was the boks strength, still is. Not knocking the Welsh wizards of the past at all, but apartheid didn't simply block more wins. How many boks ever get into greatest of all time lists? Even though they were the most dominant team for 70 years people simply don't know bok rugby well enough or choose to forget them over easier on the eye players.

fa0019 wrote:
Its one thing that grapes me a little. I read John Inverdale the other day said that NZ and Wales were the 2 greatest rugby nations in the world and I thought... dude, you know nothing about rugby

Inverdale? Yeah he said it. I think it would be foolish to think his mind thought it. Inverdale is mischevous and toys around the edges of perceptions. He lays on the compliments but only as a trap for his more sly digs later down the line. He enjoys his rugby lore, does Inverdale

SecretFly wrote:Don't worry too much about the past though.  The future is seldom interested.

FLy,

That should have read don't worry about the Western Fail.

Fao here we go again,stats prove little but if you are stretching it to 1981-2 how can you
eliminate the Lions 1974 3 wins and a draw.SA Rugby stats period 1970-76 when the
Gleneagles agreement came into force was 64 %.

At provincial level they lost or drew every match v tourists of 1970,1974,1980,the only
NH side they beat in the period was France.France and Wales dominated the 1970`s
France being either dire or great .

Fact is on the words of Colin Meads the 1965 Bok side was better than the 1970`s side
as was the 1966 Lions better than the 1971 side.The 1970`s side was the oldest in there
history,they had 2 replacements mof Myburgh and Lofty Nel both in there late 30`s.

The 1970`s were one of the worst periods in AB`s history at the time 16 losses in period
1970-80 losing a total of 16 matches.SA 6,England 1,Lions 2,France 3,Aus 4 but still had
a 64 % win average.IF you consider 1982 was one kick away from a won series then you
must also concede in 1976.They were 1 kick away from a drawn series and IF Neutral refs
had been accepted when offered rather than home town ones.

THAT series would probably have been lost to to begin to believe the 1970`s side was the
greatest ever beggers belief when compared to period say 1937-55.Even Argentina beat
them.

SA 1890 after early losses to what could be considered Lions sides to 1928 were one of
the two best sides in the world.1937-56 the best there after one of the two best only
home advantage being the differences with NZ after that point[1956].

Post 1996 for most of the time they have been playing second fiddle to NZ,England 2000-3and Australia from time to time.

Fa there were just as many ifs about the 76 series as there were about 1981 so they could just as likely lost two of the 3 series between 70 and 81. But the way they were hammered in 74  means there's no way you can label that bok team a great side. Great sides simply don't get beaten on that scale. 1974 represented the year NH rugby was at its best probably in the entire twentieth century. Trouble is...it went downhill from there.

As a side Wales couldnt beat either the boks or AB's in the 70's/ 69 with those players so its fair to say that it still took the calibre of the Lions side to do it. 71 remains the worst 3 or 4 test series here as well and that was by the lowest of margins- 2.5 to 1.5.

Taylorman wrote:Fa there were just as many ifs about the 76 series as there were about 1981 so they could just as likely lost two of the 3 series between 70 and 81. But the way they were hammered in 74  means there's no way you can label that bok team a great side. Great sides simply don't get beaten on that scale. 1974 represented the year NH rugby was at its best probably in the entire twentieth century. Trouble is...it went downhill from there.

As a side Wales couldnt beat either the boks or AB's in the 70's/ 69 with those players so its fair to say that it still took the calibre of the Lions side to do it. 71 remains the worst 3 or 4 test series here as well and that was by the lowest of margins- 2.5 to 1.5.

I didn't say the bok side of 74 was a great side, I said the boks of the 70s was a great side. They were beaten fair and square by the Lions, I'm a Lions supporter I don't dispute this. But the boks did win 2 series vs. NZ inbetween that tour, they did beat the lions in 1980, they came within a single kick of victory in 1981 in what was a difficult tour for both sides. Outside of that tour they played an additional 34 matches and lost only 4. So what, saying they lost 7 matches in 38 automatically means someone else was better? Please explain

They were easily the strongest side of the 70s, that's all I said... and that's indisputable given the series they won. If anything for the Lions to win under those conditions makes the achievement even more remarkable.

emack2 wrote:Fao here we go again,stats prove little but if you are stretching it to 1981-2 how can you
eliminate the Lions 1974 3 wins and a draw.SA Rugby stats period 1970-76 when the
Gleneagles agreement came into force was 64 %.

At provincial level they lost or drew every match v tourists of 1970,1974,1980,the only
NH side they beat in the period was France.France and Wales dominated the 1970`s
France being either dire or great .

Fact is on the words of Colin Meads the 1965 Bok side was better than the 1970`s side
as was the 1966 Lions better than the 1971 side.The 1970`s side was the oldest in there
history,they had 2 replacements mof Myburgh and Lofty Nel both in there late 30`s.

The 1970`s were one of the worst periods in AB`s history at the time 16 losses in period
1970-80 losing a total of 16 matches.SA 6,England 1,Lions 2,France 3,Aus 4 but still had
a 64 % win average.IF you consider 1982 was one kick away from a won series then you
must also concede in 1976.They were 1 kick away from a drawn series and IF Neutral refs
had been accepted when offered rather than home town ones.

THAT series would probably have been lost to to begin to believe the 1970`s side was the
greatest ever beggers belief when compared to period say 1937-55.Even Argentina beat
them.

SA 1890 after early losses to what could be considered Lions sides to 1928 were one of
the two best sides in the world.1937-56 the best there after one of the two best only
home advantage being the differences with NZ after that point[1956].

Post 1996 for most of the time they have been playing second fiddle to NZ,England 2000-3and Australia from time to time.

Alan I never said the boks of that era were the greatest ever. I said had they won a tour in NZ it would have been pretty difficult to challenge. They came close, but they didn't succeed. Given so few teams have won series in NZ & SA it really is the benchmark to a great side, just ask Sean Fitzpatrick.

however, even though they were the dominant side of the era..., how come the boks of that era never feature in anybodies list of greats? You hear great Welsh, French, Kiwi's.... you'd be lucky to find a single bok in there.

fa0019 wrote:

emack2 wrote:Fao here we go again,stats prove little but if you are stretching it to 1981-2 how can you
eliminate the Lions 1974 3 wins and a draw.SA Rugby stats period 1970-76 when the
Gleneagles agreement came into force was 64 %.

At provincial level they lost or drew every match v tourists of 1970,1974,1980,the only
NH side they beat in the period was France.France and Wales dominated the 1970`s
France being either dire or great .

The 1970`s side was the oldest in there
history,they had 2 replacements mof Myburgh and Lofty Nel both in there late 30`s.

The 1970`s were one of the worst periods in AB`s history at the time 16 losses in period
1970-80 losing a total of 16 matches.SA 6,England 1,Lions 2,France 3,Aus 4 but still had
a 64 % win average.IF you consider 1982 was one kick away from a won series then you
must also concede in 1976.They were 1 kick away from a drawn series and IF Neutral refs
had been accepted when offered rather than home town ones.

THAT series would probably have been lost to to begin to believe the 1970`s side was the
greatest ever beggers belief when compared to period say 1937-55.Even Argentina beat
them.

SA 1890 after early losses to what could be considered Lions sides to 1928 were one of
the two best sides in the world.1937-56 the best there after one of the two best only
home advantage being the differences with NZ after that point[1956].

Post 1996 for most of the time they have been playing second fiddle to NZ,England 2000-3and Australia from time to time.

Alan I never said the boks of that era were the greatest ever. I said had they won a tour in NZ it would have been pretty difficult to challenge. They came close, but they didn't succeed. Given so few teams have won series in NZ & SA it really is the benchmark to a great side, just ask Sean Fitzpatrick.

however, even though they were the dominant side of the era..., how come the boks of that era never feature in anybodies list of greats? You hear great Welsh, French, Kiwi's.... you'd be lucky to find a single bok in there.

'Fact is on the words of Colin Meads the 1965 Bok side was better than the 1970`s side
as was the 1966 Lions better than the 1971 side.'

That explains something I've wondered about for a long time. In the final test of the 1966 Lions tour, their little fly-half, David Watkins, decided to punch Colin Meads in the chest. Goodness knows why. Meads's reaction was to knock Watkins out with one punch. It lifted him off his feet and that was that.

A few days later, during a visit to a school in New Zealand, a boy asked Colin Meads why he had reacted so strongly, instead of laughing at Watkins. His deadpan answer was : "Self-defence". That 1966 Lions side must have been really formidable if their little fly-half could bother Pinetree as much as that!

For the record SA 1969-82 played 41 won 25 drew 4 lost 17 [nearly all the wins at home]
NZ 1969-82 played 62 won 40 drew 3 lost 19 [roughly even home /away]
Draw your own conclusions but neither records are great by the relavent teams best standards.

fa0019 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Fa there were just as many ifs about the 76 series as there were about 1981 so they could just as likely lost two of the 3 series between 70 and 81. But the way they were hammered in 74  means there's no way you can label that bok team a great side. Great sides simply don't get beaten on that scale. 1974 represented the year NH rugby was at its best probably in the entire twentieth century. Trouble is...it went downhill from there.

As a side Wales couldnt beat either the boks or AB's in the 70's/ 69 with those players so its fair to say that it still took the calibre of the Lions side to do it. 71 remains the worst 3 or 4 test series here as well and that was by the lowest of margins- 2.5 to 1.5.

I didn't say the bok side of 74 was a great side, I said the boks of the 70s was a great side. They were beaten fair and square by the Lions, I'm a Lions supporter I don't dispute this. But the boks did win 2 series vs. NZ inbetween that tour, they did beat the lions in 1980, they came within a single kick of victory in 1981 in what was a difficult tour for both sides. Outside of that tour they played an additional 34 matches and lost only 4. So what, saying they lost 7 matches in 38 automatically means someone else was better? Please explain

They were easily the strongest side of the 70s, that's all I said... and that's indisputable given the series they won. If anything for the Lions to win under those conditions makes the achievement even more remarkable.

Yeah well coming from a NZ perspective 70-76 was one of our worst ever periods so it didn't really take much to beat us then. No real AB greats came out of that period unless they were ending their careers (Meads) or were short lived (Ken Gray). Only Sid Going, Batty, Beegee Williams, Bruce Robertson and Kirkpatrick are noteables. There were some terrible players compared to every other AB era. No real 10, 15 of any calibre, locks and loosies fairly average etc.

And the Bok team of 76 wasn't anything to write home about either but theyre well behind the Lions of 71 and 74 who beat us both convincingly.

But if you think a 7 loss from 38 matches over that period is a great era then fill yer boots. I just don't see it that way.