Robbie rates Boks
26 Sep 2007
Crusaders coach Robbie Deans believes the Boks are the only team that can stop the All Blacks winning the World Cup.
Deans, writing in the French Rugby Hebdo paper, praised John Smit and Jake White and said the Boks and All Blacks were the only two realistic contenders.
“There are about eight or 10 contenders who are trying to convince themselves they can win the World Cup. But there are only two who know they really can win it: New Zealand and South Africa.”
Deans sees White’s Springboks as the squad most likely to crash the All Blacks World Cup party.
“I am sure they (New Zealand) have the potential to play at a higher degree of intensity no matter who their adversaries are, except perhaps for South Africa,” wrote Deans. “There are three reasons the Boks can win this World Cup. The first is historic. And it is not only because the core of the squad is from the Under-21 side, coached by a certain Jake White, that became [Under-21] world champions in 2002 by dominating the final against a New Zealand team that included five players who are here in France, including Daniel Carter.”
Carter actually did not play and the Boks beat NZ in a semi-final 19-18. Nevertheless, Deans continued.
“These Boks have since notched up some considerable success, like the Tri Nations victory in 2004 or that of the South African sides in this year’s Super 14.
“White has at his disposal a mature squad that prides itself on considerable confidence, which is based as much on their performances as the depth of their bench, which has been markedly superior to whatever his predecessors had.”
Deans also believes the Springboks will head into the quarter-finals realising that for a number of them, this could represent a fairytale end to their careers. “Victory could be the culmination of some of their careers, for players like John Smit or Victor Matfield … not to mention [coach] White,” Deans wrote.
He added that while the Springboks have maintained their physical prowess, White has introduced a broader mindset to the squad.
“South African teams always fall back on their physical prowess and a mentality that is unfailing, but White has added certain mental flexibility,” he said.
Deans also pointed to the pride South African players have in wearing the Springboks jersey and the leadership of Smit as being pivotal, as well as Smit’s calmness under pressure.
“Smit is not only a respected captain. He is also a man who can keep his emotions buried deep inside when faced with the pressure moments,” he said.
278 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 » Show All
26 Sep 2007, 14:28 pm
sorry guys, Your team has made enormous progress this year but I’ve got doubts about whether your team are good enough to tackle the AB’s. You won’t win it in the set pieces and I feel the AB’s have too much fire power around the park. I think that we won’t make it either for that matter. Give it a bloody good go but I feel this is their year.
26 Sep 2007, 14:29 pm
yeah weepee he’s not at all at his best… i rate bob though cos he is constantly improving. compare him to the guy coming off the bench for the sharks earlier in the year to the guy who led us against the tongans on the weekend…
if he keeps up this rate of improvement i wouldn’t mind picking him as captain next year if john smit isn’t available.
26 Sep 2007, 14:31 pm
GBS
Ses uur vanaand! Ek sit hier in die Dros by Canal Walk en speel op die laptop!
26 Sep 2007, 14:34 pm
Abel, nee maar dis reg so……. sit jy en vang ‘n sopie terwyl jy speel?
26 Sep 2007, 14:35 pm
SAussie
Dont fool yourself. Aus shld be confident that they can beat the AB’s after the last win. We know that have beaten them once at least for the last couple of years. Be nice to get this year’s in the final.
We also know that we can beat Aus on any given day.
The AB’s are confident of becoming champs, and rightly so, but any of Aus, SA or the frogs can give them a klap in a match.
26 Sep 2007, 14:37 pm
we nearly beat you with your strongest team at home trupisero. You guys give credit where credit is due, Steyn saved you that day, remember
26 Sep 2007, 14:40 pm
all i hear now is aussies bitching about us not giving them any credit and, apart from one rad comment about our improvement this year from SAussie, the refuse to show us any respect yet expect ours for them…
it’s hypocritical and insane.
26 Sep 2007, 14:42 pm
SAussie.
That’s true. The point is that there are 4 potential champs. I dont think the frogs will be able to play 3 BIG games in succession though.
I think its any of the Sanzar teams and your comment reflects that of the 3 teams, each are quietly (and otherwise) confident of their chances against each other.
26 Sep 2007, 14:45 pm
Interesting post in news24.com by a user. I am not saying the contents are accurate and verified but one wonders if there is any truth in this.
A well known rugby journalist reports that a midnight phone call to a member of the Springbok management team may indicate that there is something a little more sinister behind the citing.
He writes that there are some who are beginning to believe that there is a concerted effort to unsettle the Boks in their attempt to win the Rugby World Cup in France. He points out that in essence, the hearing was conducted with no evidence, and a witness who contradicted himself.
A ‘stitch-up’
As one observer noted: “Looks like a stitch-up job if I’ve ever seen one.”
He also states in his article that “late on Monday night, a member of the Springbok management received a phone call from a Tongan team official to “apologise” for the citing of Steyn. The official implied that they had not wanted to cite Steyn, but that they had had their hand forced.
He did not elaborate as to who had applied the pressure, but the manner in which the judicial hearings have been conducted at the tournament thus far suggests that some of the teams are more equal than others here. ”
The journalist further noted that “All Black prop Carl Hayman has escaped being cited for punching, and Wallaby Drew Mitchell never heard another word after his spear tackle against Wales – despite a player from the US receiving a five-match ban for the same thing.”
There are those who feel that New Zealand and Australian officials have made a mockery of international rugby over the last number of years. Some see them as a brotherhood of bandits who have conspired together for years now, particularly against South Africa.
Will it be Victor Matfield, Brian Habana, John Smit or Percy who will be targeted next?
Could it be that the Aussies and Kiwis are livid about the stitch up in the Tri-Nations i.e. SA sabotaging 3N to have a better look-in at the World Cup.
26 Sep 2007, 14:45 pm
good luck guys, I bet there are a lot more twists in this WC to come yet.
26 Sep 2007, 14:46 pm
yeah you too bro, i have a feeling you gonna catch nz napping and take them in the semi by at least 10 …
peeps may call me insane but that will be one hell of a twist.
26 Sep 2007, 14:48 pm
I reckon Ireland are too clasy and could come good at the right time
26 Sep 2007, 14:50 pm
badeesh.
Dont care whether its the frogs, the convicts or us, as long as they learn to pronounce choke in chinese – fo-mo-ye-ahs
26 Sep 2007, 14:52 pm
Saussie.
The ginger boys are gone after this weekend. the way they have played doen’t deserve a spot in the 1/4s
26 Sep 2007, 14:52 pm
lol, banana boy, we all know this is true we’ve felt it for years …
proving it is impossible unless people like the tongans and samoans play ball and talk openly about who ‘forced’ their hand.
their ties with the other two sanzar countries mean this will never ever happen.
26 Sep 2007, 14:55 pm
No smoke without fire, 209.
26 Sep 2007, 15:06 pm
bananaboy,
Opinions like that of the reader you posted are pathetic. There are inconsistencies, but there is no conspiracy.
Here’s a conspiracy theory for you from another angle – Maybe the Boks are fuelling this themselves to create a siege mentality within the camp. It helps to bring the team closer, an us against the world mentality.
I really can’t get over how many of you believe there to be something sinister going on.
26 Sep 2007, 15:09 pm
katman,
I hope you get this post later.
I just wanted to write something about the Lima tackle and consistency thing we talked about yesterday.
Lima will be remembered as a legend for playing 5 world cups, yet for me he has always played the game to destroy. Occassionally he gets a king hit in on a player and is remembered for it. Other than for these “hits” what else is he remembered for?
In his last world cup, Lima has been trying to live up to his reputation forged in past world cups. What is that reputation? It is one where he puts the fear of god into opposition backs.
If Lima gets his tackling right, his style is such that he is unable to pull out of tackles if the player being tackled has the ball or not. Lima sets out to bury his shoulder or head in his targeted opponent.
In most cases it is a legal “hit”, and is within the rules of the game, but IMO, Lima sets out to intentionally injure his opponent, to hit them so hard that they cannot continue to play.
Having looked at different highlights of the SA game, I saw that he had decided to lay down a marker on the opposition, probably because his team were getting beaten badly.
I don’t agree with this at all, because i feel his focus is solely to hit high (upper body), hit hard and hit when the opposing player is focused on something else, ie passing the ball.
I don’t want the contact in the game to be taken away at all, but it needs to be controlled. It is a core part of rugby, a test of strength and bravery at times. But I do question the motive for playing of players like Lima.
I’m picking on Lima here and not Samoans as a whole, as most of the rest of them can manage to stay on the right side of law and play their physical game. They love the physical contest, yet they play the game of rugby to win, not maim.
Lima’s style has resulted in one badly executed tackle on Pretorius that left Lima unconscious and a dangerous, high hit on Wilkinson that got him cited and then banned.
I am sorry for Lima that his world cup has ended this way, and his legacy has now been tainted because of it IMO. I guess it is fitting that the JO gave him the world cup send off his play has deserved. The one he earned.
I do agree with you on consistency, or the lack of it. There are a couple of players who haven’t been cited and should have been.
Schalk Burger’s tackle in the air was high, dangerous and brainless. A 4 match ban was too harsh when compared with other offences commited by other players, some who got lenient punsishment, some who got nothing at all.
26 Sep 2007, 15:14 pm
Presonally I think Lima’s tackle on Pretorius was hard – but it was hardly illegal
Just a big strong bloke going in hard on a smaller guy – thats the game isnt it ??
26 Sep 2007, 15:14 pm
stodders 218
you are talking sense for a change!
26 Sep 2007, 15:16 pm
Stodders re 217 , you’ve gone and presumed that i agree with the story which is a little shortsighted of you. I posted it merely because there are some truths in it that need to be adressed i.e the inconsistencies with citings. Surely you have to agree that bashing someones head in deserves a citing if you compare the offence with what Burger did, which I also agree was reckless.
26 Sep 2007, 15:17 pm
218,
agree fully stodders.
26 Sep 2007, 15:20 pm
trupisero,
Don’t go thinking that i’m going all soft now you hear
26 Sep 2007, 15:21 pm
bananaboy,
I wrote “opinions like those of the reader you posted”. I was referring to the person who wrote what you posted, not you personally. Sorry for the confusion.
26 Sep 2007, 15:24 pm
For once i dont agree with Stodders. There is definately bias towards some teams at this world cup, SA in particular. The Yellow cards on Steyn and Habana and the citings of Schalk and Steyn just add fuel to this argument. After watching some of the offences committed by other teams in this world cup that have gone unpunished and uncited, i feel betrayed.
26 Sep 2007, 15:25 pm
what do you make of drew mitchells tackle vindicated?
26 Sep 2007, 15:28 pm
Durban,
Do you believe there is a bigger conspiracy against the Boks or do you believe the Boks have just been the victims of over zealous officiating?
26 Sep 2007, 15:29 pm
badeesh,
Personally, i didn’t think Mitchell’s tackle was that bad when taken in context.
Moore’s knee and Thomas’s body check were the two incidents from that game that i felt should have been cited, and weren’t.
26 Sep 2007, 15:33 pm
Howzit Stodders!
I’ve dismounted my horse today.
Yesterday was quite an emotional day for us all – thank you for your apologies and your fair judgment in 218.
I also do not think that there is some “conspiracy”, but I do think that there are irregularities that need to be investigated.
It is a bit bizarre that almost all of the citings have occurred in Group A?
26 Sep 2007, 15:35 pm
Stodders. I dont know what to think, But I am starting to believe that the rest of the world seems to have a preconceived notion that the boks are a bunch of savages.
26 Sep 2007, 15:36 pm
There are inconsistencies for other teams too.
I have seen a couple of games where punches have been thrown, and the perpetrators have not been carded or cited. Hayman got pinged and got a yellow card. Have the ABs now got grounds for inconsistent reffing?
Look, i don’t want the game to become sanitised. The blokes out there are big guys, filled with energy and the will to win. I don’t condone king hits or punches like what we used to see in the game, but i don’t mind a bit of biff.
If a SA player threw a punch and got carded, i would expect him not to get cited. I use the example of Skinstad in this years SA v AB game in Durban as the example against which consistency should be measured in this regard
26 Sep 2007, 15:37 pm
badeesh
I didnt see it – is in on the net ??
26 Sep 2007, 15:39 pm
not sure lemme see if i can find a highlight for you …
it was crazy bad, picked the guy up, dropped him on his head
i like drew mitchell too. imho it was the worst offence so far at the tournament.
26 Sep 2007, 15:41 pm
There is more than that, what about the proffesional fouls being commited by the Tongans when they continuously were pulling down our rolling mauls and the bam!! out of the blue Habana gets yellow carded for not rolling out of the tackle. Weird and smacks of bias. Stodders do you know that New Zealand have never got a yellow card playing against the boks in all the years of rugby. That stat alone is enough for me to know that there exists a bias towards us Saffas.
Woodcock throws a punch and gets away with it. Burger has a mid air colision with a scrum half and BAM cited. weird!!
26 Sep 2007, 15:41 pm
oops
26 Sep 2007, 15:43 pm
badeesh,
Erm, slightly over the top assessment don’t you think?
Mitchell’s tackle isn’t even in the same ball park as the one committed by the American centre when he drilled the English player in their game. If you want an example of the spear tackle in its full glory, check out that tackle on youtube.
26 Sep 2007, 15:44 pm
where is the beautiful one today ??
26 Sep 2007, 15:47 pm
Durban,
Burger – Mid air collision? As katman said to me yesterday, i guess you see what you want to see. Burger’s eyes never looked at the ball. If he had waited until the man came down, he would have been alright. Schalk had a brain ****. It was dangerous. He took his medicine.
I felt the Scots should have got at least one yellow when they played NZ on Sunday. They were spoiling at the rucks, dropping the scrum, standing offside, yet the ref didn’t hand out one yellow. Sometimes refs just punish the bigger teams more harshly.
26 Sep 2007, 15:47 pm
Vinnie,
Is that your version of an apology?
26 Sep 2007, 15:48 pm
it’s deleted on youtube tried to post here …
sorry ig won’t post links anymore …
26 Sep 2007, 15:49 pm
lol, but the american dude got what he deserved didn’t he?
26 Sep 2007, 15:52 pm
badeesh,
Mitchell got a yellow card. For whatever reason, the citing official deemed that to be an appropriate enough punishment for the offence, so he didn’t cite.
I guess the only way for the IRB to sort this mess out is for the citing official to take away the citing commissioner’s power to judge for himself the severity of the offence and to refer all offences to the citing committee.
26 Sep 2007, 15:53 pm
237 – I had a long meeting, but I’m back now.
26 Sep 2007, 15:56 pm
Ok. I take your point about Burger it was reckless. Thats why he got penalised. At the end of the day it was a forward v scrumhalf and if you Slow down anything to much and it sometimes looks alot more dubious than it is.
26 Sep 2007, 15:57 pm
stodders,
I hear you. And I agree. And while it might not be a deliberate, premeditated conspiracy, I honestly believe this inconsistency stems from a deep-seated bias (yes, not unlike racism or homophobia) against South African rugby players and against us as a nation. Because of our past we are easy and handy villians. And trying to change this view is like trying to get vindicated to like girls instead of boys overnight.
26 Sep 2007, 15:58 pm
beautifully stated katman.
26 Sep 2007, 15:58 pm
katman,
Glad we’re back on speaking terms.
26 Sep 2007, 16:00 pm
katman,
Maybe it will be a good thing when the Boks have more coloured representation in their ranks. No one will dare cite then for fear of being branded racist
26 Sep 2007, 16:01 pm
Still in the context of some of the instances that happened in the first round i felt that it was very harsh. Especially considering that Juan Smith was throwing punches and never got cited. All i can think of to substantiate that is the fact that the last time Burger was injured SA lost 5 games in a row. The English knowing this felt that the only way to win the game against us was to get rid of Burger and hence he got cited for his offence and Juan got away clean.
26 Sep 2007, 16:02 pm
Durban,
Juan Smith threw punches but didn’t get a card or cited? That’s preferential treatment if you ask me
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.