SF1: South Africa v New Zealand, 24 October

First topic message reminder :

            
SOUTH AFRICA v NEW ZEALAND

24 October 2015
16:00 BST (UTC+01)
Twickenham, London

Live on [TBC]

Ref: Jérôme Garcès (France)
ARs: Romain Poite (Poite) & John Lacey (Ireland)
TMO: George Ayoub (Australia)

A. Head to Head

90 Played 90
35 Won 52
3 Drawn 3
52 Lost 35
1412 Points 1745

B. Recent Form

25 July 2015
Emirates Airline Park, Johannesburg
20 – 27 to New Zealand

4 October 2014
Ellis Park Stadium, Johannesburg
27 – 25 to South Africa

13 September 2014
Westpac Stadium, Wellington
14 – 10 to New Zealand

5 October 2013
Ellis Park Stadium, Johannesburg
27 – 38 to New Zealand

14 September 2013
Eden Park, Auckland
29 – 15 to New Zealand

6 October 2012
FNB Stadium, Johannesburg
16 – 32 to New Zealand

15 September 2012
Forsyth Barr Stadium, Dunedin
21 – 11 to New Zealand

20 August 2011
Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium, Port Elizabeth
18 – 5 to South Africa

30 July 2011
Westpac Stadium, Wellington
40 – 7 to New Zealand

C. TEAMS:

SOUTH AFRICA

01 Tendai Mtawarira
02 Bismarck du Plessis
03 Frans Malherbe
04 Eben Etzebeth
05 Lood de Jager
06 Francois Louw
07 Schalk Burger
08 Duane Vermeulen

09 Fourie du Preez (captain)
10 Handre Pollard
11 Bryan Habana
12 Damian de Allende
13 Jesse Kriel
14 JP Pietersen
15 Willie le Roux

16 Adriaan Strauss
17 Trevor Nyakane
18 Jannie du Plessis
19 Victor Matfield
20 Willem Alberts
21 Ruan Pienaar
22 Pat Lambie
23 Jan Serfontein.

NEW ZEALAND

[TBC]

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Milkyboy, Im not saying that the citing Officer is English, but Brain Moore is and the Guardian is an English Newspaper.

The citing officer comment was aimed at canelion, laurie. 

Our papers and columnists are still following the World Cup even though we're not in it. The favourite's captain potentially missing the final is a story. It's not some xenophobic crusade.

You're right blackcanelion, it was McCaw's hip that clips Louw's shoulder. Storm in a teacup.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/73365190/Rugby-World-Cup-It-is-an-illusion-there-is-no-elbow-from-Richie-McCaw

Biltong wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I didn't watch the game yet so:

DON'T TELL ME THE SCORE!

OK.

Spoiler Alert:

One team played rugby, the other played anti-rugby

Please tell me what anti rugby is

SA chose to play a completely defensive game, kicking the leather off the ball when they had it. They were so scared of being turned over in possession they chose not to have the ball.

People will say it almost worked - but if they had actually had the courage to try something they could actually won the game. i am unable to remember a single try scoring opportunity they created. Yes the lineout was misfiring, but the scrum and maul looked a potent weapon.

It was harsh to call it anti-rugby I guess. it is a valid tactic, but usually one associated with teams who believe they cannot win but hope they can keep the score board reasonable. Having chosen to play this way, they needed to actually kick better than they did.

aucklandlaurie wrote:I often get the feeling that most English people associated with Rugby just hate the man.

If you believe that, it says a hell of a lot about your own ignorance.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Im not saying that the citing Officer is English, but Brain Moore is and the Guardian is an English British Newspaper.

Fixed that for you.

Some people are never happy. "The boks should play attacking rugby".... remember the 2013 Ellis park classic. Yep the boks lost by 11 in good conditions.

In poor conditions they play a conservatvive KO rugby strategy and they lose by 2,

I would have liked them to have backed their skills a little more but NZ were pretty dominant throughout the game.... just not on the scoreboard.
The kicking game was the right one but they kicked very poorly, probably cost them the match.

People are just peeved they didn't get a beach rugby exhibition... well this is the business end of the rugby world cup. NZ have scored 1 try in their last  2 finals. That's pressure rugby.

In terms of McCaw, I don't think he'll get cited, he wasn't looking at Louw. Although Louw was caught pretty bad and blindsided, there doesn't look to be intent although one thing I find odd is McCaw's loop whilst passing Louw in the first place.... went about 10 metres when he could have done it in 3. The only reason why their could be a suggestion of foul play as he wasn't really following play. If you missed a final for that though you'd be pretty peeved. If Ross Ford got cleared, McCaw will too.

In fairness for McCaw to miss the final he'd probably have to be shown to be wearing a knuckle duster mind

LondonTiger wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Im not saying that the citing Officer is English, but Brain Moore is and the Guardian is an English British Newspaper.

Fixed that for you.

ebop wrote:You're right blackcanelion, it was McCaw's hip that clips Louw's shoulder. Storm in a teacup.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/73365190/Rugby-World-Cup-It-is-an-illusion-there-is-no-elbow-from-Richie-McCaw

Probably more telling was that louw said he thought the cuts happened at the bottom of a ruck and that he didn't so much as hold his head after this coming together.

LondonTiger wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Im not saying that the citing Officer is English, but Brain Moore is and the Guardian is an English British Newspaper.

Fixed that for you.

Calling him brain Moore is certainly flattery.

Our papers are English when the football/cricket/rugby teams play and British when andy Murray wins a tennis match.

SA playing to their strengths and NZ to theirs in a classic. I can only think those begging for SA to run more don't really understand rugby that much. Great game won by the best team on the day

25.10.2015

LondonTiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I didn't watch the game yet so:

DON'T TELL ME THE SCORE!

OK.

Spoiler Alert:

One team played rugby, the other played anti-rugby

Please tell me what anti rugby is

SA chose to play a completely defensive game, kicking the leather off the ball when they had it. They were so scared of being turned over in possession they chose not to have the ball.

People will say it almost worked - but if they had actually had the courage to try something they could actually won the game. i am unable to remember a single try scoring opportunity they created. Yes the lineout was misfiring, but the scrum and maul looked a potent weapon.

It was harsh to call it anti-rugby I guess. it is a valid tactic, but usually one associated with teams who believe they cannot win but hope they can keep the score board reasonable. Having chosen to play this way, they needed to actually kick better than they did.

Got to agree with this, it also very nearly worked.

The scoreboard doesn't really reflect the domination the AB's had throughout the game. SA stood up fantastically defensively but offered very little in attack. It was almost a tactical masterstroke though with only Pollard letting SA down imo, his kicking from hand is shocking. If Lambie had of started (who suits these kind of tactics with a much stronger kicking game) I think SA would have pulled it off.

LondonTiger wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:I often get the feeling that most English people associated with Rugby just hate the man.

If you believe that, it says a hell of a lot about your own ignorance.

He has star quality and is not a agro type of bloke. These types can and do get away with a lot. Take Burgers eye gouge in 2009... protesting innocence or not (and I actually believe him) it was a straight red, if that wasn't a red then I don't know what is. Yet he got a yellow.
Reputations certainly follow players.. those who simply play the grey area of the law with no malicious intent do get away with stuff from time to time. Those who get into little incidents i.e. Cooper, Hartley, Botha.... the ref will make a mental note, "not this guy again etc".

If we're brutally honest, Joubert should have carded him at least a couple of times in the RWC11 final. Didn't even give a penalty. Its a problem I have with some refs, they're afraid of big calls against "national treasures".

I read that the well respected Ian McGeechan said after the Joubert fiasco recently... "If scotland were New zealand.... would he have given that decision"? This is the great man himself.

However just like united never got a penalty against them in old trafford in the fergie years... top teams, top players do get favourable refereeing from time to time. That's human nature.

In terms of McCaw, look it was an accident but Louw had a reasonably bad injury, enough for him to go off for a few mins to get stitched up. Its not like he wasn't stationary. McCaw doesn't look like he went for him but it was clumsy. He won't even get cited... although he might get cited by world rugby just to show they're not biased...and then clear him whilst the panel gets signed shirts by the man. People saying its nothing have to acknowledge... the guy was bleeding from his head after, enough to get stitched up... but if it was Jamie Cudmore I'd still say probably no ban.... well perhaps Cudmore is the exception.

Still probably the best player of all time... or at least of the last 30 years.

The English hate McCaw???

I've never heard anything so wide of the mark, they guy is an absolute legend. He gets a bit of a rap for "cheating" but that's more in respect that hatred, he's just a very clever player who pushes the limits.

Stop being so precious!

Sgt_Pooly wrote:The English hate McCaw???

I've never heard anything so wide of the mark, they guy is an absolute legend. He gets a bit of a rap for "cheating" but that's more in respect that hatred, he's just a very clever player who pushes the limits.

Stop being so precious!

Totally agree with every word Sgt. Hugely admired player, an all time great of the game. Jealous we can't find a similar 7, living on the edge of darknesswith the laws.

I think what frustrates many is we have had 3 weeks of sh press telling us nh how bad we doing playing a style rugby and are a disgrace to rugby playing the power game. Yet when others play it it is a great tactic


Ah well roll on the open running semi and a fascinating final

Well done Sa for reaching the semi

Riskysports wrote:I think what frustrates many is we have had 3 weeks of sh press telling us nh how we doing play rugby and are a disgrace to rugby playing the power game. Yet when others play it it is a great tactic


Ah well roll on the open running semi and a Faso aging final

Well done Sa for reaching the semi

How many games in this RWC have played under those conditions?

fa0019 wrote:

Riskysports wrote:I think what frustrates many is we have had 3 weeks of sh press telling us nh how we doing play rugby and are a disgrace to rugby playing the power game. Yet when others play it it is a great tactic


Ah well roll on the open running semi and a Faso aging final

Well done Sa for reaching the semi

How many games in this RWC have played under those conditions?

What conditions. It only rained at the end

Not sure the SA wingers got one pass all game

Riskysports wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Riskysports wrote:I think what frustrates many is we have had 3 weeks of sh press telling us nh how we doing play rugby and are a disgrace to rugby playing the power game. Yet when others play it it is a great tactic


Ah well roll on the open running semi and a Faso aging final

Well done Sa for reaching the semi

How many games in this RWC have played under those conditions?

What conditions. It only rained at the end

Not sure the SA wingers got one pass all game

SA played the margins. They've played attacking rugby ala the Ellis Park 2013 classic, but they lost... by 11 points. They felt the best way to beat NZ was to play a tight game... one with bad conditions where it rained for most of the day before, the morning of the game and from 50 mins onwards.

The difference for SA is that when it suits... they can play attacking rugby, they can also play tight rugby.

Any NH that played NZ yesterday would have been blown away. The boks had a chance to win the game, were within a score for the last 10 mins. For a team who have lost to Japan, Argentina etc this year, that's all you can ask.

fa0019 when you see the incident zoomed in and in slo mo you will see that McCaw doesn't touch Louw's head. He clips his shoulder. The cuts came from the bottom of a ruck as milkyboy says. They were pretty big cuts, 20 stitches I think.

This was a great game. Just watched the replay. NZ had a lot of the ball. SA akmost pulled it out there at the end.
Great teams, great drama.

LondonTiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I didn't watch the game yet so:

DON'T TELL ME THE SCORE!

OK.

Spoiler Alert:

One team played rugby, the other played anti-rugby

Please tell me what anti rugby is

SA chose to play a completely defensive game, kicking the leather off the ball when they had it. They were so scared of being turned over in possession they chose not to have the ball.

People will say it almost worked - but if they had actually had the courage to try something they could actually won the game. i am unable to remember a single try scoring opportunity they created. Yes the lineout was misfiring, but the scrum and maul looked a potent weapon.

It was harsh to call it anti-rugby I guess. it is a valid tactic, but usually one associated with teams who believe they cannot win but hope they can keep the score board reasonable. Having chosen to play this way, they needed to actually kick better than they did.

Anti rugby is when a team refuse to engage in contact, ie. Not engage the maul, anti rugby is when a team playes cynical rugby, ie. Give a way deliberate penalties to avoid conceding tries, ie. Kick a ball or play a ball in an offside position when running back to get onside.

Anti rugby is playing the man and not the ball. Anti rugby is taking a dive, Anti rugby is deliberately passing the ball into a player trying to get onside, ie. Milking a penalty.

Conservative rugby is what South Africa played yesterday, but it was induced because their halfback pairing couldn't execute their exits out of the redzone and that kept South Africa pinged inside their 22 for the most part of the game.

Conservative rugby is when you keep taking the points when you know you need a try to win.

That is what South Africa did, they played conservative rugby.

Expansive rugby is what South Africa did at Ellispark for the last few years, they ran the ball wide and ran the Shyte out of most teams.

Creative rugby is what New Zealand does, they innovate.

So lets get it straight.

You get different types of rugby.

And South Africa has the ability to play expansively, however their coach is conservative and therefor puts limits on them, South Africa is not creative because they don't have an innovative coach.

However South Africa does not play Anti Rugby.

I thought that SA played a very good and composed game yesterday. A gam plan that negated the AB's attacking threats.

Still feel it was a very harsh call on Matfield for the cleaning out by the neck as it didn't look that way and I am sure had SA got the 3 points to make it 18-20 that the momentum would have been wit them.

The TMO yesterday was a complete and utter joke, pretty much as they have been the whole tournament.

Do rolling mauls come under the anti rugby umbrella? I know they're part of the game but the laws around them have shunted this tactic into anti rugby territory. Just let a team collapse them.

Agree ebop, hate mauls

This game was a NZ v SA game it was just like England v Wales not a great exhibition
but enthralling to the end.
NZ never intended to play the wide game,wet slippery pitch,then the deluge they changed
tactics.
Boks were kept in it by there massive defensive effort and the penalty count. BUT the bits
about dominant Scrum.Not in the match I watched in those conditions EITHER side could
have been pinged every time.
BOTH sides had Scrums where they were seriously troubled,breakdowns the same
Penalty areas .Garces is notorious for it but was even handed too can`t ask for more.
The Louw incident,?he doesn`t have a mark on his head until some 6 minutes later.
Then does ANYONE really think a 5 point half time lead against an AB side is enough?
They controlled the game for 50 minutes,won the Yellow Card period and closed out
the game as professionaly as you will ever see..
Two men left on the bench they could have gone into overtime no worries.
The AB`s are beatable ANY side is BUT you will have to play 85 minutes to do it.

Since Duprez has been captain i have not seen Ruyan Pinar take to the field.

Surely he is worth game time,or why have in the team?

Do you think he will play this week in the third place play offs?

aucklandlaurie wrote:I often get the feeling that most English people associated with Rugby just hate the man.

I really don't understand this comment, do you mean British or specifically English? And also, why? I know quite a few of us have been frustrated during the odd game where we think perhaps he's got away with a few decisions. But that's not normally directed at him, but the ref. For what it's worth he always seems a really decent, honest and down to earth sort of bloke to me. I'd say the same of Carter and pretty much all the ABs. I think he got booed in one of the games, not great but not specific to the English, and I think more pantomine than anything else, as I'm pretty certain he got a standing ovation when subbed in another game.

More importantly, congrats to the ABs on another final. Does show that you have a team that really can win in all sorts of ways. I wasn't pretty but it's actually quite enjoyable watching how the ABs counter different styles.

I know Steve Hansen does a nice line in dry humour, but he could cheer up a bit. The whole gruff no-nonsense thing with AB coaches is a bit underwhelming now. Still, guess it works.

fa0019 wrote:

In terms of McCaw, look it was an accident but Louw had a reasonably bad injury, enough for him to go off for a few mins to get stitched up. Its not like he wasn't stationary. McCaw doesn't look like he went for him but it was clumsy. He won't even get cited... although he might get cited by world rugby just to show they're not biased...and then clear him whilst the panel gets signed shirts by the man. People saying its nothing have to acknowledge... the guy was bleeding from his head after, enough to get stitched up... but if it was Jamie Cudmore I'd still say probably no ban.... well perhaps Cudmore is the exception.

Still probably the best player of all time... or at least of the last 30 years.

Murray Kinsella has done analysis on incident here. Nothing in it. McCaw's hip came in contact with Louw, not his elbow. The blood injury to Louw occurred about 7 minutes later.

http://www.the42.ie/richie-mccaw-incident-rwc-15-2408913-Oct2015/

Hood83 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:I often get the feeling that most English people associated with Rugby just hate the man.

I really don't understand this comment, do you mean British or specifically English? And also, why? I know quite a few of us have been frustrated during the odd game where we think perhaps he's got away with a few decisions. But that's not normally directed at him, but the ref. For what it's worth he always seems a really decent, honest and down to earth sort of bloke to me. I'd say the same of Carter and pretty much all the ABs. I think he got booed in one of the games, not great but not specific to the English, and I think more pantomine than anything else, as I'm pretty certain he got a standing ovation when subbed in another game.  

More importantly, congrats to the ABs on another final. Does show that you have a team that really can win in all sorts of ways. I wasn't pretty but it's actually quite enjoyable watching how the ABs counter different styles.

Stephen Jones in the Sunday Times has been on an anti-kiwi crusade for a long time now. Head over there today and read him for a taste of his bitter, twisted attitude to the ABs.

ebop wrote:fa0019 when you see the incident zoomed in and in slo mo you will see that McCaw doesn't touch Louw's head. He clips his shoulder. The cuts came from the bottom of a ruck as milkyboy says. They were pretty big cuts, 20 stitches I think.

If thats the case then there is none. I mistakenly assumed someone looked back at Louw's injury and that was the cause. I didn't hear anyone in SA complaining though... TVs turned off anyhow at the 81st min, people went home, cut wood, worked on their cars anything to cut off from the game .. I built a wardrobe.

fa0019 wrote:

ebop wrote:fa0019 when you see the incident zoomed in and in slo mo you will see that McCaw doesn't touch Louw's head. He clips his shoulder. The cuts came from the bottom of a ruck as milkyboy says. They were pretty big cuts, 20 stitches I think.

If thats the case then there is none. I mistakenly assumed someone looked back at Louw's injury and that was the cause. I didn't hear anyone in SA complaining though... TVs turned off anyhow at the 81st min, people went home, cut wood, worked on their cars anything to cut off from the game .. I built a wardrobe.

In Wales we drink lots of beer after a loss (kind of the same as when we win I guess). Don't they do that in SA? It might be the tonic you've been missing .

If SA go on to get third place I think you can say the world cup has sort of been a success. It's been a disastrous season and it gets ended on a high.

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

ebop wrote:fa0019 when you see the incident zoomed in and in slo mo you will see that McCaw doesn't touch Louw's head. He clips his shoulder. The cuts came from the bottom of a ruck as milkyboy says. They were pretty big cuts, 20 stitches I think.

If thats the case then there is none. I mistakenly assumed someone looked back at Louw's injury and that was the cause. I didn't hear anyone in SA complaining though... TVs turned off anyhow at the 81st min, people went home, cut wood, worked on their cars anything to cut off from the game .. I built a wardrobe.

In Wales we drink lots of beer after a loss (kind of the same as when we win I guess). Don't they do that in SA? It might be the tonic you've been missing .

If SA go on to get third place I think you can say the world cup has sort of been a success. It's been a disastrous season and it gets ended on a high.

To get 2 points and a chance of winning the game at the final whistle is fair for the boks. Preparation hasn't been ideal i.e. their crazy losses. Where they go from here.... same as everyone else really. How to climb the ladder once again.

The downside after all of this is Heyneke Meyer's contract has been extended for two more years.

So we will continue to play conservative rugby and not reach our potential

Its easy to say we got to without two points etc, but the second we got within two points, did we ever look like getting into the territory where teams score points from? No. I honestly fail to see a bright side to this defeat. We keep losing like this to NZ (and Australia) and we keep having to "look at the positives". There are none. We had no verve. Even less imagination and were old as hell. NZ really didn't get out third. Every time they fell behind, they revved a little harder and caught up.

Anyway, looking at the positives
- Victor can't possibly come out of retirement again?
- De Jager
- Malherbe
- de Allende

The problem for the boks is that Pollard is not the finished article... a bit like Wilkinson in 1999. He's got lots of attributes but game management and pressure kicking is not one of them yet. They played De Allende and Kriel outside of Le Roux there is no one who can take that pressure off. He has a long road to go yet.

The good thing is the front 5 look strong but the boks need changes in the backrow, wings etc and still I think that whilst playing Pollard and De Allende together is positive... the boks will lose more bigtime games then they win for a few years to come.

AUS for instance have Foley, Giteau, Cooper, Beale who all are comfortable 10-12s. Most teams have gone back to single pivots and big ball carriers in the centre. AUS have scored 9 tries in their last 2 KO matches. They re so fluid and have so many options. Teams with one pivot show their cards too easily.

Richie in the clear.

Good on WR for not making a meal of it.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11535184

I have concluded Pollard is not a test 10

You would expect him to be ab,e to at least exit his 22 in a competent manner, he was absolutely atrocious against the All Blacks.

Sorry to come along to this thread so late.
My over-whelming feeling from yesterday's game was that it was really disappointing to watch as a neutral. It didn't have the excitement of any of the, say, Wales/England/Aus games and I watched them as a neutral. At no point did SA look like they had the nous to get the win.
Kingraf/Biltong - i know you have harked back to days when you have thrown it about (that doesn't read quite right!) but got pumped (it hasn't gotten any better!) but knowing the rugby that you are capable of, would you not preferred to have gone out with more of a flourish? The game just drifted along towards the end.

For me mate its not really about the brand of rugby, per se. New Zealand weren't exactly throwing big swinging passes out wide, or trying flying offloads. Would it rather go down feeling we could have won it (ie playing to win/score tries) than "they could have lost it?" yes. But I could accept defeat playing a conservative game plan if I felt it had a decent chance of panning out.

I didn't. I said the whole week we'll lose less than a converted try. But what really hurt is that we had no weapons to really hurt them with. We were scraping the whole game. If we played like that against NZ in a RC game, we'd have lost by 25. Luckily it was a KO game, so instead of running it in our half, NZ felt comfortable kicking it into our 22, and watch us toil to get out of our own half. In some ways it was a little insulting, a team deciding that we aren't in a million Sundays going to get out of our half with ball in Hand

Biltong wrote:I have concluded Pollard is not a test 10

You would expect him to be ab,e to at least exit his 22 in a competent manner, he was absolutely atrocious against the All Blacks.

He didn't look like a club 10 yesterday. I've liked what I've seen of him previously. Not good enough or choke? If it's the latter, and his confidence isn't in pieces he can come again.

I thought the boks game plan was fine. With a fly half who could kick and a normally functioning line out it could have been diferent. Gassed at the end though and couldn't get over the gain line

I don't understand Meyer's selection of Pollard with the type of game plan he had in mind. Pollard will happily attack the gainline etc and try to get his centres going (that is when Burger is not first receiver) but if you want to play the territorial kicking game why not play Lambie, who kicks better (out of hand and from the tee)...and for that matter why didn't he select Frans Steyn, who can put you in the opposition 22 with every kick?

ebop wrote:Richie in the clear.

Good on WR for not making a meal of it.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11535184

Watched the game again last night. Interesting that when Louw joins the next ruck seconds later he uses a prone A Smith to "clean" the underside of his boot before he gets there, probably just as worthy of a social media frenzy.

Regarding the game, I will certainly eat a bit of humble pie after my score prediction. The boks really lifted. Their defence was solid for the most part and discipline was excellent. Only gave away 2 kickable penalties.
Their limited gameplan (I wouldn't call  it anti-rugby) didn't look like it was going to breach the AB defences, but after watching the game a second time last night I think their mistakes, aimless kicking and lineout losses, never let them build any real pressure. The AB defence was good, but never under any concerted pressure in their 22. They looked good in the first 15min, breaking the AB line a couple of times and Habana looked a real threat under the boxkicks. Agreed with the commentator who said perhaps Lambie on earlier in tandem with Pollard would have given better kicking options.

Saying all that, discipline aside, NZ looked in control for pretty much 60 minutes of the game, and after the break tightened up the disciplne and took advantage of SA ineffective kicking from deep to keep the game mostly in the areas they wanted it. I got the impression that if they needed to they would be able to play a bit more expansively and possibly cross the line again, but the conditions dictated a very conservative, safety first approach.
Good, tense and intense game worthy of the occasion. Well done to the Boks, but I think the better team won on the day.

I think the post above pretty much sums up my take on the game.

Will say this though. It was a 2 point game. No matter how penned a team is in their own 22, it's only a dropped catch/Knock on/whistle happy ref away from being in the opposition half and getting into penalty or drop goal range. 

For all the control the blacks had and how unlikely it seemed that the boks would get their noses back in front, and how professionally the blacks closed the show that's far too fine a margin for their dominance... Wet weather rugby or not. We've all seen lots of games in lots of sports lost in similar circumstances. In fact as an Englishman it's the rule rather than the exception!