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]

I don't think my comments in an obscure corner of the interweb will make a blind bit of difference to the pressure on the Boks. As always, it's only one man's opinion.

I just think this AB team is a different kind of animal to previous incarnations and to the other teams at this tournament. Honestly, I'll be surprised if they don't win Bill.

goneagain wrote:I don't think my comments in an obscure corner of the interweb will make a blind bit of difference to the pressure on the Boks. As always, it's only one man's opinion.

I just think this AB team is a different kind of animal to previous incarnations and to the other teams at this tournament. Honestly, I'll be surprised if they don't win Bill.

Agree there Goneagain. I think part of it has to do with the fact that McCaw, DC, Nonu, Smith, Mealamu probably have less than 10 days as ABs left. The right things are coming out of the camp to suggest France is not a one off in terms of the quality this team can bring. Years has gone in to these knockouts and they don't dare let the skip down.

Ha Bilt you guys are loving being written off by people!

NZ know they are favourites. But far from heavy. Their form was also patchy in the pool stages. Seems like you guys are jumping up to grab the underdog status and we are screaming at everyone to calm down and stop exaggerating our chances.

South Africa are the worst possible side for New Zealand to meet after such a euphoric victory like that. I was so all over the place that it's taken me a couple of days to calm down and now I'm a bundle of nerves again about having to face you guys in a knockout game. The most consistent side against the best World Cup side. I can imagine the coaches will try everything possible to get the teams as psyched as they can for this. I imagine NZ will invoke the pain of 95 and the Boks may well get Joost to help give out the jerseys or something. The guy was and is inspirational and it'd be great for you to get him involved however he can if he is in the UK.

SA have often come out hard against NZ and have jumped out to lead early. Last year is an example. I was really impressed with the accuracy and intensity of NZ's clearouts-I had a great view in fact-and for NZ hopefully we can replicate that to an extent that Aaron Smith gets good quality ball quickly to build phase play. De Jager is in great form but we'll know exactly how ginger he is 10 minutes in.

Disney mate, you guys are heavy, heavy favourites.

SA has been written off by the pundits, the public, the bookies, and as Spiro in Australia suggested, World Rugby is sending SA a message by having appointed Jerome Garces for the match.

He is intimating even World Rugby wants us to lose.

The mere facts are there is nothing that Meyer can say to change the perceprion that the Boks are crap, his results have harmed his reputation and that of the Boks.

I am fine with that, I said from the start we won't beat Nz.

But you know what, the boks have never been such underdogs, not for any period of time I can remember,

I look forward to this, because if we lose we will hear I told you so, and we have been hearing that a lot. So no skin of our teeth if we hear it one more time.

But ai do look forward to see what this ragtag, written off Bok team can do against the best team the Professional era has ever delivered

Chuck in a bit of revolt and you're very French in your approach mate

Maybe the sight of your greatest rivals will inspire you to great things. I'd like you to, but obviously not at the expense of us winning. I just hope that a decision doesn't decide the match. Really sorry to hear your pessimism on Garces, there'd be a couple of refs NZ wouldn't want to have either. I'm sure the bloke doing the other semi is one-looks like the best is being kept in cotton wool for the final.

This is the stage at which we usually fall. 3 semi defeats. I just don't know mate. I'm not bsing you about us being favourites, but it'll be bloody close. Because even though this is the most consistent team in sport, this is a one off World Cup match. Our bloody bete noire. And you guys are in the perfect position to kill off our hopes.

Two words give me a bit of hope though. Daniel Carter.

South African players and Frenchmen don't seem to be able to communicate well or understand each other, which should actually be a bit of an oxymoron, because there are so many of us that play over there.

In the match against Japan Garces was the referee, he never allowed us to gain scrum dominance, the Japanese got their scrum ball out in less than a second.

He penalised us a few times and took a major advantage from us. We see him in the same light as Poite, and it does not spell any good for us.

But let me not be the one to blame the referee for our impending loss, after all, we are the uberunderdog and regardless of the referee won't win anyway.

What strikes me in support of NZ is the good form displayed by quite a few individuals. DC, Savea etc all running into good form at the right time. Having SBW on the bench shows ridiculous strength.

But for SA this is a great opportunity as being a knock out match the pressure will build on NZ the longer it remains tight. And SA definitely have the quality players to cause an upset, but they will have to raise their game to new heights. As ever it means taking the NZ forwards on and keeping the ball away from them. Your backrow can take the fight to NZ and I think it will be one hell of a fight. Cannot wait and best of luck to both sides.

The mindgames cut no ice,SA at full strength presumeably as team has been announced.
NZ likely to be two key players short,SA are far from crap and have been consistent since
Japan Loss.
These teams have been playing each other 2 or 3 times a year no secrets exist they
know each others games backwards.The Big men beating them up scenario NZ are
hardly 5 stone weaklings.
Despite not looking or producing two games consistently NZ have won ALL there own
Scrum ball,95% own Lineout Ball [only Ireland being better].
In a knockout match it is 50/50 Boks have every chance of winning and it would
surprise no one certainly not me.
Garces is red hot on Breakdown area and Penalties/yellow cards are likely if it comes
down to DG`s Boks win hands down.

In SA at the moment I'd give the All Blacks a 50% chance of winning v the Boks, in NZ 75% and in a RWC semi on neutral territory 60%. Leaves a 40% chance of a Bok upset (all worked out over hours using complex formulas). That's good enough for me!

The All Blacks win because they know how to take their chances. Too often I've seen the Boks dominate come close to scoring 10 times v the All Blacks only for them to then score 7 against the run of play. Their belief that they will score tries keeps them calm and it is diffificult to build scoreboard pressure through penalties. You can only admire and enjoy watching the All Blacks. They are the games I enjoy most as their is no expectation to win but when leading with 10m left it is torture as the almost inevitable All Black moment of magic wins the contest.

SA has all the components to challenge well. 1) Solid front row, 2) Powerful, young, fit and dynamic 2nd row, 3) Killer loose trio, 4) Experienced and clever 9, 5) dynamic if flaky 10, 6) Young and exciting centre partnership. One runs hard and straight and the other has a mean side step, 7) Serious speed out wide, 8) creative if flaky 15, 8) team that turns over ball across the board, 9) Good kicking options in the backs with left and right footed kickers, 10) one of the best scrums, line outs and mauls in World rugby etc etc

All the ingredients are there to challenge the All Blacks. What lacks is an unbeatable mentality, lack of basic skills under pressure and ideas when on attack. Way too predictable and still little sign of attacking space, support players running off the ball carriers' shoulder, coming at an angle at speed etc. Don't ask me why but that's just the way it is. The Boks are a Ferrari with a grandmother behind the wheel. So much potential to be unleashed but as long as their obsession with physicality (so tired of hearing Meyer go on and on about it) prevails the brain will always be hindered by too much brawn.

For SA to win Pollard needs to have a blinder. The pack should get him decent front foot ball. The pack will perform and perhaps dominate but will the backs produce?

I think the Boks have a win rate against the All Blacks better than 6N teams have against the Boks. Doesn't stop them believing and competing so why should the Boks be written off so easily. They are as close as a Habana intercept from winning.

Looking forward to a cracker this weekend and match of the RWC

Agree with the Habana intercept-if there's one weakness in his game Carter can be prone to throwing intercept passes. JDV and Habana are the best in the business of picking passes off so NZ will have to be wary of him coming off his wing and being sure to draw him when they come down his side with momentum.

The Boks will back themselves to smash NZ back often enough to sow those old seeds of doubt. But with Carter behind the wheel and the ability of the All Blacks to focus their minds should they fall behind it wouldn't be game over so quickly.

South Africa have a win rate of around 62% so that makes them one of the most consistent sides in world sport too. For all their physicality there is no end of skill in the team. Vermeulen could play centre-look at his blockbusting run through the NZ midfield and his sumptuous ball to put Habana away in 2013.

Pollard's running game is a huge threat but Carter is the best defensive 10 going around and he should be able to pick Pollard off.

This is too close to call really. Consistency means nothing in a one off-especially when the teams are so close to one another.

You are being very complimentary of the Springboks Disneychilly, and I appreciate the respect you are showing to the Springboks.

However the reality is SA only wins around 40% of their matches against NZ, and our overall record is slowly declining.

Add our current form and it is not likely that we will beat you.

Over the tenure of our last three coaches we have only won 33% of our matches vs AB's and under Meyer only 14%, one solitary win.

I put some stats up earlier in the thread, NZ is consistently 8 points better than us.

Our success rate has been 65.88% over history, which suggests we win two then lose one.

Our record would look so much better if you guys stopped playing rugby.

Without NZ our success rate would be 72%

Ha mate we've been f**ked over in too many World Cups and South Africa is too good for us to be anything but bloody nervous!

However I do know we're favourites and if we play to our best then we should win. But if the Boks play to their best it's likely we won't be allowed to so the opposite will occur.

It takes 20 seconds to score a try mate, 8 points isn't that big a margin in that case. If Sexton had gotten that kick in 2013 there were still 7 minutes to go. Not that you could have told me at the time I was busy checking if anyone had Imodium in the stadium.

Biltong wrote:You are being very complimentary of the Springboks Disneychilly, and I appreciate the respect you are showing to the Springboks.

However the reality is SA only wins around 40% of their matches against NZ, and our overall record is slowly declining.

Add our current form and it is not likely that we will beat you.

Over the tenure of our last three coaches we have only won 33% of our matches vs AB's and under Meyer only 14%, one solitary win.

I put some stats up earlier in the thread, NZ is consistently 8 points better than us.

Peaks and troughs BB

NZ have had a great run but I do think once the Carter and McCaw show ends it will drop down a bit. Not only have they been 2 of the most special players the game has seen, they are remarkably able to remain fit for big games. McCaw has what 150 caps, Burger has 85 or something... their careers have almost come from over the same period and both have always been first choice... yet McCaw has what 65 more caps. He's a remarkable human being and literally should be studied by the scientific community into the limits of physical exertion.

Remember that McCaw has been around since 2002, Carter 2003. You need a half decent memory to recall NZ prior to this.

Not saying the others aren't very good but I don't think they are any better than what NZ had before... however Carter and McCaw, for me at least they are well above the grade, and a NZ grade in that.

We can throw stats about win rates, RWC success but to be truthful it doesn't really matter.

NZ or any team in fact can have a 90% win rate but its a hill of beans come a one off knockout match. What matters is who wins this single match. What you do elsewhere is meaningless. You can have all your players fit, perfect preparation but 1cm to the left, 1cm to the right could be the diff between winning and losing. You can try and lean on the past but in the end, its what you bring on the day what counts.

The important thing here is that the Boks don't fear NZ, they never have. They have the utmost respect for them but they don't fear them. Other nations do, other nations tend to blub... "boo hoo, but what as the ABs do, what are they doing"?

A few things are going for the boks which gives me confidence that they will be right in the hunt come the 70th min. They are playing well, they have near a full strength side, the weather suits the bok's game more than NZ's.
Their last few encounters have been very very close and I expect it to be within a score but I think the boks can win, I think they will win (with glasses on maybe).

You think playing in the rain suits SA best?been in Wellington in the wet season recently?
Both teams respect,NOT fear each other could go either way IF score is close after 70.
Expect NZ to go up a gear for the big finish,hope its not another yellow card penalty fest.

emack2 wrote:You think playing in the rain suits SA best?been in Wellington in the wet season recently?
Both teams respect,NOT fear each other could go either way IF score is close after 70.
Expect NZ to go up a gear for the big finish,hope its not another yellow card penalty fest.

It suits their style of play more yes. Doesn't mean NZ can't play in rain, doesn't mean NZ aren't used to rain... its that NZ preferred method of play is more restricted. 5m gaps become 2m gaps, players have poorer vision, ball handling, kicks less easier to catch and boots go that little deeper into the ground.

Put the roof on in the MS and sure, NZ can have a field day and score 50. Have British autumn conditions and it changes the entire emphasis of the game.

Here are some stats that make for interesting reading.

Imagine NZ never played rugby, and you compare the stats of the Six Nations teams excluding Italy and the four RC teams.

With and without NZ.

South Africa 62% vs 70%
Australia 48% vs 59%
England 53% vs 56%
France 49% vs 52%
Wales 48% vs 50%
Ireland 40% vs 42%
Scotland 39% vs 41%
Argentina 26% vs 30%


We would have been THE BIG DOG

FA the first ever 3N game is an indication that NZ can put a score in in wet conditions.

Bilt I don't want to sound patronising but the Boks' overall win rate of 62% is pretty damn impressive in itself. We know the ABs are an anomaly-especially when we follow the NZ cricket team as well...

Oh kak I just gave you another reason to want to beat us.

Biltong wrote:Here are some stats that make for interesting reading.

Imagine NZ never played rugby, and you compare the stats of the Six Nations teams excluding Italy and the four RC teams.

With and without NZ.

South Africa 62% vs 70%
Australia 48% vs 59%
England 53% vs 56%
France 49% vs 52%
Wales 48% vs 50%
Ireland 40% vs 42%
Scotland 39% vs 41%
Argentina 26% vs 30%


We would have been THE BIG DOG

Historical rates are skewed to the now. During periods of bok dominance, they played less games in 70 years then we have seen in the last 20. It means historical rates have more emphasis to the last 20 years than anything else. The boks still had a overall win record vs. NZ until 1999. However the number of games they've played since simply distorts the data. NZ have been the win rate kings for the last decade and a bit.

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:Here are some stats that make for interesting reading.

Imagine NZ never played rugby, and you compare the stats of the Six Nations teams excluding Italy and the four RC teams.

With and without NZ.

South Africa 62% vs 70%
Australia 48% vs 59%
England 53% vs 56%
France 49% vs 52%
Wales 48% vs 50%
Ireland 40% vs 42%
Scotland 39% vs 41%
Argentina 26% vs 30%


We would have been THE BIG DOG

Historical rates are skewed to the now. During periods of bok dominance, they played less games in 70 years then we have seen in the last 20. It means historical rates have more emphasis to the last 20 years than anything else. The boks still had a overall win record vs. NZ until 1999. However the number of games they've played since simply distorts the data. NZ have been the win rate kings for the last decade and a bit.

As I mentioned to Disney chilli above, in the last 12 years we have won 33% of our matches vs NZ

Biltong wrote:Imagine NZ never played rugby

Sales of velcro gloves would go through the roof, sheep would be walking on tiptoes, and there'd have been massive fights to be extras on The Lord Of The Rings because the locals would be going stir crazy.

disneychilly wrote:

Biltong wrote:Imagine NZ never played rugby

Sales of velcro gloves would go through the roof, sheep would be walking on tiptoes, and there'd have been massive fights to be extras on The Lord Of The Rings because the locals would be going stir crazy.

Hehe, no matter if we are the big dogs.

I would have sympathy for the sheep though

NZ Team:

Moody
Coles
Franks
Retallick
Whitelock
Kaino
McCaw (C)
Read
A Smith
Carter
Savea
Nonu
C Smith
Milner-Skudder
B Smith

Subs
Mealamu
B Franks
Vito
Cane
Barrett
Kerr-Barlow
SB Williams

Thanks Mintie I've been clicking on news sites for the last hour waiting!

Moody was great from the bench but his scrummaging is apparently pretty good. Ben Franks worries me a bit-a bit loose at times.

Hope the weather holds up. It's lovely in Dublin at present funnily enough.

Yep, good team that.

Head to head comparisons anyone?

I mean player vs player.

Biltong wrote:Disney mate, you guys are heavy, heavy favourites.

SA has been written off by the pundits, the public, the bookies, and as Spiro in Australia suggested, World Rugby is sending SA a message by having appointed Jerome Garces for the match.

He is intimating even World Rugby wants us to lose.

The mere facts are there is nothing that Meyer can say to change the perceprion that the Boks are crap, his results have harmed his reputation and that of the Boks.

I am fine with that, I said from the start we won't beat Nz.

But you know what, the boks have never been such underdogs, not for any period of time I can remember,

I look forward to this, because if we lose we will hear I told you so, and we have been hearing that a lot. So no skin of our teeth if we hear it one more time.

But ai do look forward to see what this ragtag, written off Bok team can do against the best team the Professional era has ever delivered

No question Spiro has a real bug up his arsenal about SA, but the angle that surprised me more this time round were his issues with England. He was a shocker about the Poms in the lead up to this cup.  Maybe just click bait for his kids website but some of his articles were ridiculous.

You've probably got a better front row than the ABs mate but that is a classy team with a good bench

I really like SAs #4-8, + #2 obviously. There's hope there imo.

Imagine NZ, South Africa, Australia, England, France or Wales never played rugby.


We would have been THE BIG DOG

Haven't seen much of Malherbe Bilt, how is he? I'd say Beast trumps Owen but Coles has come on so much that that's a 50-50 for me. Bismarck over the ball and Coles' pace. Locks are even for me. As are the loosies. McCaw's more a spoiler than a fetcher now so over the ball is pretty even with Read stepping up there. 9-10 is even. Du Preez's experience and Pollard's talent vs Smith's pace and Carter's complete package. Midfield went SA's way but I reckon NZ will want to put that right. SBW coming on could be make or break. I think it's advantage NZ in the back three but a very small one at that.

Who wins the bench will depend on how the game opens up. SA win in physicality but skill and pace go to NZ. Barring injury and if the track stays dry Barrett could do some massive damage.

disneychilly wrote:Haven't seen much of Malherbe Bilt, how is he? I'd say Beast trumps Owen but Coles has come on so much that that's a 50-50 for me. Bismarck over the ball and Coles' pace. Locks are even for me. As are the loosies. McCaw's more a spoiler than a fetcher now so over the ball is pretty even with Read stepping up there. 9-10 is even. Du Preez's experience and Pollard's talent vs Smith's pace and Carter's complete package. Midfield went SA's way but I reckon NZ will want to put that right. SBW coming on could be make or break. I think it's advantage NZ in the back three but a very small one at that.

Who wins the bench will depend on how the game opens up. SA win in physicality but skill and pace go to NZ. Barring injury and if the track stays dry Barrett could do some massive damage.

Malherbe is a very good 3. He won't eat someone alive but he strengths the boks upfront no question. Its a very tight game. I think the forwards are very evenly matched. Halfbacks.. SA has the 9 with a relatively newby 10, opposite for NZ. Kicking probably goes to NZ though.

Kriel is a little worry in defence. Le Roux's form hasn't been great. Need a big game from Vermeulen. Schalk carried well last week but Schalk isn't the same as he was 10 years ago. Duane needs to take the ball in more for me.

You think Kaino will be sent on a Stop Duane mission? Looked like he did that with Picamoles.

disneychilly wrote:Haven't seen much of Malherbe Bilt, how is he? I'd say Beast trumps Owen but Coles has come on so much that that's a 50-50 for me. Bismarck over the ball and Coles' pace. Locks are even for me. As are the loosies. McCaw's more a spoiler than a fetcher now so over the ball is pretty even with Read stepping up there. 9-10 is even. Du Preez's experience and Pollard's talent vs Smith's pace and Carter's complete package. Midfield went SA's way but I reckon NZ will want to put that right. SBW coming on could be make or break. I think it's advantage NZ in the back three but a very small one at that.

Who wins the bench will depend on how the game opens up. SA win in physicality but skill and pace go to NZ. Barring injury and if the track stays dry Barrett could do some massive damage.

Malherbe is obviously still inexperienced, but Moody is as well, they have 9 and 10 international caps respectively.

Malherbe is a strong scrummager and better in general play and defence than Jannie ever was.

Don`t kid yourselves that NZ front row is the equal at least of yours bench isn`t exactly
rubbish either.Lock combination arguably the best pair in the World currently,Crockett
will be missed.
Back row as good as any currently happier to have a dedicated Lock on the bench,
Milton-Skudder to fragile won`t last past 60 mins.
Actually NZ overtook SA head to head 1996 and was THE most successful versus all
comers from 1999 NOT SA[but only by one game]

Emack Milner-Skudder wouldn't go the distance if it went to plan anyway. They'd have Barrett on at 15 then.

No lock means they back their skills in the wet to run SA around. If they were more conservative I imagine Romano would come in for Cane and Vito would cover 7. But two loosies again is still interesting.

I remember it was 1996 where NZ overtook SA. The head to head was blaring out at you in every test of that series.

Embracing the uncertainty that comes with facing the boks. How do I occupy myself for the next day and half....... Luckily kids sports on a Saturday and BBQ tomorrow night. It's all just padding for the game. Bring it on already.

SA have been a bit of a sleeping giant in this tournament, have not played that well and in my opinion have been very conservative in their efforts. Same could be said of NZ.

I honestly feel that SA will have the power and dominance in the forwards to push NZ.

Its a shame this is the 1/2 final as I feel this has the makings to be one of the all time great games and although I feel NZ will win, I would not be surprised at all to see SA win.

Was it a few months back when SA were dominating NZ all over the park only to opt for uncontested scrums ultimately leading to their loss?

SecretFly wrote:Imagine NZ, South Africa, Australia, England, France or Wales never played rugby.


We would have been THE BIG DOG

Why did you put England and France in there Fly

RubyGuby wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Imagine NZ, South Africa, Australia, England, France or Wales never played rugby.


We would have been THE BIG DOG

Why did you put England and France in there Fly

Hahahahahaha. Good one

blackcanelion wrote:Embracing the uncertainty that comes with facing the boks. How do I occupy myself for the next day and half....... Luckily kids sports on a Saturday and BBQ tomorrow night. It's all just padding for the game. Bring it on already.

Lucky you!
We've got to wait another 24 hours for our match - and it could well be our last one too!

Just seen a poll in a SA news agency. 60% are backing the boks. Obviously a bit of national bias in there but I don't think the diff between the teams are huge. The journalists are generally calling it for NZ but they're all a bunch of moffies anyhow.

This will be the 6th game in 2 years the boks have played NZ. They've only won 1 of the 5 but all have been close affairs with the average points diff in those matches being 7.

NZ will go into the match as favourites, if they play their best... they will win. However teams rarely rarely do and for me it will be the team who plays the conditions best who wins. Looks like its going to rain all day.

Lots of pressure on NZ for me. The boks have been written off by most. If the boks get a lead early on I think it will simply become unbearable as all the dominance of the last 4 years, the victory in the ellis park classic in 2013, being defending champs etc will means sweet feck all.
Like England in 2003 QF when Wales scared the life out of them. Its the reaction which counts.

NZ won't take the boks lightly. They know they're in probably the biggest game of their lives since the 11 final.

But the boks have to play well, they have to play better than they have all year, probably better than they have played under Meyer and also play smart rugby. Lots of pressure on Handre too. Place kicking has not been brilliant and if he's not hitting 5/6 the boks simply won't win... they won't get that many chances vs. NZ, those that do have to take them. Drop kicks need to be utilised too. Get points every time they're in NZ's half.

Prediction - dare I say it, boks by 6 (tinted call there).

I'd be surprised if SA get within 15 points.

By their standards, SA look a bit powder puff and they won't have the legs to live with the speed of NZ's play. The fact that they struggled so long to put Wales away speaks volumes.

Arg or Aus will test NZ much more in the final.

The fact that this rivalry was the unofficial world championship for so long coupled with SA having a winning record over NZ until 96 means there is no aura whatsoever for NZ to enjoy. They know they can stop the juggernaut and done so on numerous occasions. The 95 final, avoiding the sweep in Jozi in 96, ruining NZ's perfect season in Rustenburg in 06, ending the run at Carisbrook in 08, being the only team to beat NZ in 14, it is such a regular occurrence that SA seem to lift and knock NZ off when they are on the verge of something special. Even when they are not written off. I've heard Boks say that they can lose to other teams but can't lose to NZ. They lift big time. You see that in the comparative results vs other teams-NZ has a superior record against those.

I'd like to think fitness and the Boks having played final after final would make a difference, but the sheer adrenaline of being in such a big game and South Africa's desperation would negate it IMO.

NZ are scared of the Boks and scared of losing their crown here which is nothing to be ashamed of. Which is encouraging as it means they'll come down from the high of the QF. SA can do something special here. But so too can New Zealand.

Cyril wrote:I'd be surprised if SA get within 15 points.

By their standards, SA look a bit powder puff and they won't have the legs to live with the speed of NZ's play. The fact that they struggled so long to put Wales away speaks volumes.

Arg or Aus will test NZ much more in the final.

Powder puff



Won't have the legs



Struggled to put Wales away.



WE have the most gainline successes in the tournament, you don't get those if you are powderpuff, as for "the legs" mabe ou should go watch our last 20 minutes vs Scotland, Wales, Samoa and USA.

AS for struggling to put Wales away, Wales were playing with a complete defensive mindset, took no risks, kicked possession away, Granted our attack was one dimensional, but maybe you should ask why, perhaps there is a reason that you might find out this coming weekend.

New Zealand isn't going to play kick away and defend, they will generate opportunities for us to win turn overs and counter.

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:I'd be surprised if SA get within 15 points.

By their standards, SA look a bit powder puff and they won't have the legs to live with the speed of NZ's play. The fact that they struggled so long to put Wales away speaks volumes.

Arg or Aus will test NZ much more in the final.

Powder puff



Won't have the legs



Struggled to put Wales away.



WE have the most gainline successes in the tournament, you don't get those if you are powderpuff, as for "the legs" mabe ou should go watch our last 20 minutes vs Scotland, Wales, Samoa and USA.

AS for struggling to put Wales away, Wales were playing with a complete defensive mindset, took no risks, kicked possession away, Granted our attack was one dimensional, but maybe you should ask why, perhaps there is a reason that you might find out this coming weekend.

New Zealand isn't going to play kick away and defend, they will generate opportunities for us to win turn overs and counter.

Schalk Burger
Bismarck Du Plessis
Duane Vermeulen
Eben Etzebeth

powderpuff????

yep, sounds about right.

fa0019 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:I'd be surprised if SA get within 15 points.

By their standards, SA look a bit powder puff and they won't have the legs to live with the speed of NZ's play. The fact that they struggled so long to put Wales away speaks volumes.

Arg or Aus will test NZ much more in the final.

Powder puff



Won't have the legs



Struggled to put Wales away.



WE have the most gainline successes in the tournament, you don't get those if you are powderpuff, as for "the legs" mabe ou should go watch our last 20 minutes vs Scotland, Wales, Samoa and USA.

AS for struggling to put Wales away, Wales were playing with a complete defensive mindset, took no risks, kicked possession away, Granted our attack was one dimensional, but maybe you should ask why, perhaps there is a reason that you might find out this coming weekend.

New Zealand isn't going to play kick away and defend, they will generate opportunities for us to win turn overs and counter.

Schalk Burger
Bismarck Du Plessis
Duane Vermeulen
Eben Etzebeth

powderpuff????

yep, sounds about right.

And the biggest powder puff of them all, Lood de Jager.

I said 'by their own standards'. SA just don't look as menacing as usual.

One-dimensional, unintelligent rugby won't be nearly enough to beat NZ and I can see a few cards for a frustrated SA side in this one.

Let's hope the 'fans' don't blame the ref again this tournament

Biltong wrote:And the biggest powder puff of them all, Lood de Jager.

He does have puffy cheeks though....ones you could pinch!

Interestingly, I was on the tube after the SA v USA game and on our carriage were a couple of Saffa Ladies, we got talking and it turned out to be none other than Lood's mum and girlfriend.  Very nice ladies, very gracious and obviously proud.  The boy's rise is staggering in my opinion.  I asked his mum if he was going to stay in SA long term....sadly for you Saffa's, it looks like he'll take up a French contract the very minute he gets offered one...make of that what you will.