Preview: All Blacks vs Wallabies
18 Sep 2009
Keo.co.za previews the Tri-Nations friendly in Wellington.
Non-events. You have to hate them. And nowhere in world sport is there a bigger non-event than the one being played in Wellington on Saturday.
The Springboks, with their title-grabbing victory in Hamilton last week, ensured that the only people who have a vested interest in the final Tri-Nations fixture are optimistic Aussies hoping to see their stuttering, yet talented side put one over the old enemy, and disgruntled Blacks fans (yes the thousands of you in Cape Town are included in this bunch) who will be hoping their side doesn’t slip even further into the abyss.
With nothing to play for, you’d expect it to be an open game with the ball seeing plenty of air. However, both sides’ desperation to finish their campaigns with a victory could result in a far more conservative pattern, although this is unlikely, particularly for the Blacks, who’ve shown a distinct lack of appreciation for playing the percentages throughout the tournament.
Given both sides’ penchant for a ball-in-hand attack, there’ll be an emphasis on setting an attacking platform through set-phase, tackle-point and breakdown dominance.
The Blacks’ scrum failed to trouble the Springboks in Hamilton in the manner the Wallabies had the previous week in Brisbane, and they’ll be second best against a unit who have made exponential improvements in this facet of play over the last two years.
There’s also no reason to believe that the Blacks will remedy their lineout woes in a week, despite drafting Tom Donnelly into their second row in favour of the Matfield-scarred Isaac Ross. Blacks hooker Andrew Hore will be relieved that he isn’t faced with the prospect of having to negotiate the Springbok lineout maestro, but in the Aussie lock duo of James Horwill and Mark Chisholm he and his jumpers still face formidable opponents, who will ensure that their lineout struggles continue.
Robbed of decent set-phase ball I can’t see the Blacks winning this one, even in their backyard. Unless, of course, the Wallabies kick poorly, feeding a dangerous back division with opportunities to attack from broken field.
As mentioned earlier, tackle-point and breakdown dominance will be crucial to the outcome. Blacks skipper Richie McCaw will always be a force in the latter aspect, but he will be up against two of the game’s finest breakdown exponents in George Smith and David Pocock. Their potency will be amplified by their team-mates’ ability to impose themselves on defence, something the Wallabies were adept at in their victory over the Springboks a fortnight ago and which the Blacks failed to do in Hamilton.
A quick recycle is crucial to the success on an expansive game plan and even the mercurial flyhalf Dan Carter cannot craft scoring opportunities when his service is being stifled. This holds true for both sides, but the Wallabies have a 10-12 axis in Matt Giteau and Berrick Barnes to revert to a territorial game if they need to, where the Blacks will rely almost entirely on Carter in this regard.
If the Wallabies can avoid being suckered into trying to replicate the expansive game the Blacks are expected to play, and mimic the Springboks’ measured but highly effective approach (bearing in mind that they will have to make certain adjustments given that they don’t have the quality of player to copy it completely) there’s no reason they won’t win against the most limited All Blacks side in a decade.
Prediction: Wallabies by 7
New Zealand - 15 Mils Muliaina, 14 Cory Jane, 13 Isaia Toeava, 12 Ma’a Nonu, 11 Joe Rokocoko, 10 Dan Carter, 9 Jimmy Cowan, 8 Kieran Read, 7 Richie McCaw (c),6 Adam Thomson, 5 Tom Donnelly,4 Brad Thorn, 3 Neemia Tialata, 2 Andrew Hore, 1 Tony Woodcock.
Subs: 16 Aled de Malmanche, 17 John Afoa, 18 Jason Eaton, 19 Rodney So’oialo, 20 Brendon Leonard, 21 Stephen Donald, 22 Hosea Gear.
Wallabies – 15 James O’Connor, 14 Lachie Turner, 13 Adam Ashley-Cooper, 12 Berrick Barnes, 11 Drew Mitchell, 10 Matt Giteau, 9 Will Genia, 8 George Smith (c), 7 David Pocock, 6 Rocky Elsom, 5 Mark Chisholm, 4 James Horwill, 3 Ben Alexander, 2 Tatafu Polota-Nau, 1 Benn Robinson.
Subs: 16 Stephen Moore, 17 Pek Cowan, 18 Dean Mumm, 19 Wycliff Palu, 20 Luke Burgess, 21 Quade Cooper, 22 Peter Hynes.
By Ryan Vrede
182 Comments
18 Sep 2009, 05:08 am
Over hyped Dragons won’t win in NZ! Put the stats and analysis aside. All Black pride and the nations’s expectations will get them over the line. The Bledisloe is going nowhere this year.
18 Sep 2009, 05:45 am
Wrong Ryan! This dead-rubber game is of utmost importance to both teams. Both have had a bad year and have a point to make, both wants to build upon the previous outing against the Boks and national pride and head coaches that want to show they have something to prove are all at stake here.
Because both teams are desperate, and because both are about on the same “excellence” level at the moment, any gameplan can be expected, which make predicting the outcome impossible.
But I do thing we can expect to see an enjoyable and tightly fought game.
18 Sep 2009, 06:39 am
The ABs are really staring deeply down the barrel here. (Something with which the traditional wooden-spooner yarpies, over the years are, undoubtedly, much more familiar.) But I rather fancy the Wallabies to reverse the record books if their potent front-row gets to dominate in the scrums.
18 Sep 2009, 06:50 am
Things I disagree with:
1. “Non-event”. Even aside from the prospect of rankings up for grabs and having two of the top 3 teams in the world playing each other (a prospect that should excite any genuine rugby fan), and aside from the fact that GH’s job could well be on the line if his side suffer a loss, there is the next WC to consider. The ABs will have a huge advantage there considering they’re playing it at home, and a loss to Australia on Saturday could well undermine this psychological advantage for that tournament. This is in the best interests of every international team in the tournament (other than the ABs of course). Many are tipping an Aus vs ABs final for 2011 given the draw and location, so this could well be considered “RWC 2011: the prequel”.
2. Not sure you could consider Horwill and Chisolm “formidable opponents” in terms of the lineouts.
3. Not sure if it’s an actual disagreement, but I think there’s every chance the Wallabies could kick poorly. Aside from Brisbane, the barbarians match and the first game against Italy they’ve been kicking poorly all season.
4. I haven’t watched the game again and I haven’t looked at the stats, but my memories of the final SA vs ABs match are that the ABs had the upper-hand at the breakdown. They just weren’t able to convert that into points on the board.
5. Dan Carter: “mercurial”? Seems to me he is Mr Consistency, and I say that as a Wallabies fan. One intercept-pass does not make someone mercurial. If you have to hang that tag on someone, hang it on Giteau. He’s been the 3N FH all season who most mixes sublime play with sheer idiocy.
6. “Baring”. I realize a spell-checker wouldn’t have picked that one up, but surely you have sub-editors or work-experience teens to pick up on mistakes like that? I don’t think it’s expecting too much from a site listed as a top-20 rugby website by the Daily Telegraph that they’d get their homophones right?
18 Sep 2009, 07:04 am
I’d like to see the Blacks win. It may mean Robbie Deans gets fired and Father Ted stays on. Both good for the Springboks.
18 Sep 2009, 07:16 am
Don’t know about non-event.
It’s going to be a tough, tight rugby game between two of the best sides in the world.
Looking forward to it actually.
18 Sep 2009, 07:20 am
I reckon the ABs will pull this one through but only if they play ugly and get away with their usual haul of transgressions.
Oz are a much better side than they are credited with and if Deans is fired (highly unlikely) then surely he will get AB job and that will be the WC ’11 over for us !!
18 Sep 2009, 07:29 am
Why is my comment (post 4) still “awaiting moderation”? That hasn’t happened to me for a few months now and I can’t think of any recent posts of mine which could’ve seen me blacklisted. I also can’t see anything offensive in the post itself, unless it’s my irritation at spelling errors from someone I assume is a professional journalist.
18 Sep 2009, 07:32 am
Abs by 7 – boys in black will run it …. the lineout still must be a shambles so please boys keep it in field.
18 Sep 2009, 07:33 am
ab by 7.
Good morning south africa.
18 Sep 2009, 07:34 am
#7 SJonesIsAGit: ryan is an award winning journalist! With 2463 or so articles written…so your jealousy is misplaced sjoneisagit!
18 Sep 2009, 07:34 am
Deans back for the ABs – aaaah what a dream – back to Sader rugby – ho ha
18 Sep 2009, 07:35 am
I cant believe the AB’s are still starting Hore. He looked like he was about to **** a brick every time he was about to throw the ball into the lineout. Ho has obviously lost his confidence.
18 Sep 2009, 07:36 am
#4 Kietzphat:
I like the way you think
18 Sep 2009, 07:39 am
#12 Sonito: Agreed they should of started with Aled – give the guy a start
18 Sep 2009, 07:39 am
Good morning all.
Are there any worthwhile international rugby this weekend?
18 Sep 2009, 07:39 am
#12 Sonito: lol…”**** a brick” i haven’t heard that expression since varsity days…brought back memories of pressurised learning…
18 Sep 2009, 07:41 am
Writing this off as a dead rubber game is just unmittigated arrogance towards the ANZAC teams. I doubt whether too many Saffas felt the same when we beat the ABs in Rustenburg a couple of years ago in what was also considered a dead rubber.
Pride is at stake for both sides, as it should be in a test match and whoever wins this game will hold a psychological advantage going into the final Bledisloe Cup match.
18 Sep 2009, 07:43 am
#10 Transformation:
Most of which were actually “cut and pastes”.
18 Sep 2009, 07:49 am
#14 stew:
Hore was fantastic last year but you can see in his body language on the field that he has completly lost his confidence and he does not look like he is enjoying his rugby at the moment. I dont understand, they dont even give Aled a 20 or 30 min run in a game. Very confusing.
18 Sep 2009, 07:57 am
#19 Sonito:
It looks like GH has decided that Hore and Kevin are his two WC hookers and is determined to give Hore as much game time to come right, as possible. It must be quite galling for Aled, though.
18 Sep 2009, 07:59 am
#11 Transformation: My “jealousy” is misplaced? Are you saying he isn’t worth being jealous about? I’d agree.
And that was listed as quoting post #7, but on my page it was quote #8. What’s happened to my post #4? I put at least 10 minutes into that post! Outrage!
18 Sep 2009, 08:03 am
What a lot of hot air from Ryan! Its anything but a non-event for the kiwi and aussie rugby fans! Its huge, a win could make all the difference for the team’s developement in the future, and will take a pressure off!
He’s got the prediction wrong too. The Aussies will not win in NZ this time. ABs by 5.
18 Sep 2009, 08:05 am
#21 SJonesIsAGit:
Complain to Roy, the webmaster, he might be able to explain. I just wish some of the articles here were subjected to the same rigorous censorship, based on quality.
18 Sep 2009, 08:07 am
Looks like I’m going to have to copy-and-paste my original post piece by piece to see if I can sneak it past whichever moderator is sleeping on the job. Here we go:
Things I disagree with:
1. “Non-event”. Even aside from the prospect of rankings up for grabs and having two of the top 3 teams in the world playing each other (a prospect that should excite any genuine rugby fan), and aside from the fact that GH’s job could well be on the line if his side suffer a loss, there is the next WC to consider. The ABs will have a huge advantage there considering they’re playing it at home, and a loss to Australia on Saturday could well undermine this psychological advantage for that tournament. This is in the best interests of every international team in the tournament (other than the ABs of course). Many are tipping an Aus vs ABs final for 2011 given the draw and location, so this could well be considered “RWC 2011: the prequel”.
18 Sep 2009, 08:08 am
#20 David:
Probaly right. You will probaly find that Hore and Kevin have long term contracts so GH has to play them because they cant afford to contract more players.
18 Sep 2009, 08:09 am
“2. Not sure you could consider Horwill and Chisolm “formidable opponents” in terms of the lineouts.
3. Not sure if it’s an actual disagreement, but I think there’s every chance the Wallabies could kick poorly. Aside from Brisbane, the barbarians match and the first game against Italy they’ve been kicking poorly all season.
4. I haven’t watched the game again and I haven’t looked at the stats, but my memories of the final SA vs ABs match are that the ABs had the upper-hand at the breakdown. They just weren’t able to convert that into points on the board.”
18 Sep 2009, 08:10 am
5. Dan Carter: “mercurial”? Seems to me he is Mr Consistency, and I say that as a Wallabies fan. One intercept-pass does not make someone mercurial. If you have to hang that tag on someone, hang it on Giteau. He’s been the 3N FH all season who most mixes sublime play with sheer idiocy.
18 Sep 2009, 08:10 am
6. “Baring”. I realize a spell-checker wouldn’t have picked that one up, but surely you have sub-editors or work-experience teens to pick up on mistakes like that? I don’t think it’s expecting too much from a site listed as a top-20 rugby website by the Daily Telegraph that they’d get their homophones right?
18 Sep 2009, 08:13 am
#19 Sonito: Aled is a monster as well – He had a fantastic S14 , and really deserves a longer run at top level – can see alot of potential in this boy
18 Sep 2009, 08:14 am
Hrmm looks like point 6 was the one which triggered the moderation. That was the one in which I (civilly) derided Ryan’s spelling of “baring”. I also used the term for a word which sounds the same but is spelled differently, which may be what set off the filters.
18 Sep 2009, 08:16 am
#29 SJonesIsAGit:
Ahh, the nudity filter.
18 Sep 2009, 08:18 am
#20 David: agree, feel for him, he has all the other attributes, and we could have used his go forward…
put it this way, our lineout throwing was woeful, he couldnt do any worse…
18 Sep 2009, 08:19 am
#32 David: Ha, no I was thinking more the filter which prevents people from calling other people men who like men. Rhymes with romopexual. The word I used was one which rhymes with romofone.
18 Sep 2009, 08:23 am
#32 SJonesIsAGit:
That’s it then. You Aussies have no class.
18 Sep 2009, 08:26 am
#31 poppa69:
Whose place do you think Aled is more of a threat to, Kevins’ or Hores’, based on their perceived roles?
18 Sep 2009, 08:28 am
#35 David: It’s true — I can’t deny it. But I still don’t see why using the word which differs only by one letter from “romophone” warrants immediate censure.
Must be my patriotism shining through.
18 Sep 2009, 08:33 am
#34 David: I would say Mealamu, but he could very easily oust both with a bit more game time…
18 Sep 2009, 08:34 am
#34 David: Kevin is a great player , especially in the tight tests , he always makes those hard yards and his throwing is pretty accurate ( think he has his own video on lineout throwing !!! Need it now) …. Hore had an awesome S14 , and grappling for the ball , i dont think you can get better , scrums well as well, i dont think however he deserves his spot on current form , got the feelin he is carrying an injury ….. Aled the monster , the future !
18 Sep 2009, 08:35 am
Somehow “friendly” doesn’t seem to be a word that should be used in test match rugby and even less so in the tri-nations, even if this is a wooden spoon contest.
18 Sep 2009, 08:43 am
#36 poppa69:
That was my feeling, as well. Kevin is generally used as an impact player if my memory serves me right. The way Aled plays, he’s powerfull enough to start the game in place of Hore and mobile and aggressive enough to come on in place of Kevin.
I suppose it’s a matter of how much GH values Kevins experience at the sharp end of a game.
18 Sep 2009, 08:48 am
#27 SJonesIsAGit: Glad I wasn’t the only one who picked that up. Carter and McCaw are the 2 stable elements in the All Black set up at the moment, how could you ever describe either as mercurial?
18 Sep 2009, 08:49 am
#39 David: Im not sure when Mad munches last game was ?? he’s been in the squad from the start, so would be I imagine lacking some decent game time…
18 Sep 2009, 08:53 am
I don’t agree, keo, but again that’s not very unusual.
The All Blacks will take this one.
18 Sep 2009, 09:07 am
Caster Semenya
18 Sep 2009, 09:13 am
#41 poppa69:
It is rather strange, given Kevins injury, that he hasn’t been given more game time. It’s almost as if GH is panicking and is caught between making too many changes and none at all. The result has been a bit like the proverbial curates egg.
The team for tomorrow, though, does seem to be an improvement on previous selections.
18 Sep 2009, 09:17 am
i cant wait to see Barnes take apart the AB midfield.(even though this is the battle for the wooden spoon) I rate him very highly, he is the general that makes that backline click.
The subplots will also be interesting to watch as it unfolds after the game…. what happens to the respective teams coaches should either team lose? or better yet, if it is a dull draw will both coaching setups get fired
18 Sep 2009, 09:27 am
#44 moedeloos: of course hes panicking, hes trying to hold on to his tenure… his selection policy and tactics have been poor all season… guys like Roko have been given numerous chances to come right, then a guy like Messam gets one chance only?
18 Sep 2009, 09:27 am
Go All Blacks , hate the wallabies !
18 Sep 2009, 09:28 am
Gonna be a good game, but I see the All Blacks taking this one. With Reid and Thomson in the back-row and the pretender Ross ousted (although Tom Donnelly isn’t great either), their lineout will improve a lot. Their breakdown play is always good and that backline looks very dangerous, especially with Carter starting to look good again.
18 Sep 2009, 09:31 am
#45 poppa69: huh?
18 Sep 2009, 09:36 am
#48 moedeloos: dont know what happened there, I was responding to David, and I even clicked on the respond to him, so must be a glitch?
18 Sep 2009, 09:36 am
#47 Ratel Brussow (MSIUR):
Donnelly might not be the flashiest lock, but I believe he’s the sort of honest workman the ABs need at the moment.
18 Sep 2009, 09:39 am
#49 poppa69:
The same thing happened to me a couple of days ago.
My post ended up responding to something totally different. My fear is, that if this continues, I could have a friendly reply misdirected to Tackler.
18 Sep 2009, 09:44 am
#51 David:
I think it has to do with deleting a comment from the thread…
18 Sep 2009, 09:47 am
Ahh I see that it is a trial for the minnows tomorrow
18 Sep 2009, 09:50 am
#53 jondood:
Wow, is it resurrection day already? It’s been a long time since you blogged here.
18 Sep 2009, 09:51 am
#5 Boelie: Only a non event to SA’s eh! Any game is a game and I think Keo is backing the Wallys and hoping they’ll win to show the team that made the Boks look like limp biscuits are really a cut above..but wishful thinking, the AB;s are primed and ready to do what they have quite consistently done to the Wallys of late, win, win, win– and if they lose well the Wallys will only have won a game-not the Bledisloe!! In all seriousness though, the Wallys have been improving, they should have beaten us last outing and why should this one be different?
Well the AB’s have had the proverbial boot up the Khyber and have been put on notice so it may not only be Al(the squint)Baxter who will be sent to the recycle bin!! We have held parity with the Wally scrum, have Carter back and a mean old mix in the backs. Mils and Corey and Roks will be looking to punish any way they can from deep, Iceman and the Nonu machine will be like hounds after the fox and am sure the new mix up front will be the unknown difference.
It will be the same old from OZ with some new polish but think the Kiwis will be playing straight up the middle and hard as Bro!! Kiwis by 12-15
18 Sep 2009, 09:51 am
At the beginning of the 3N I said that I hope that this last game would be meaningless and that I won’t have to care about the outcome. That is exactly what happened. The Springboks have relegated a game between the no. 2 and no. 3 sides in the world to a meaningless bore-fest.
I’m not even going to watch. I’ll read in the paper next week whether it’s Deans or Henry that’s looking for a new job.
18 Sep 2009, 09:52 am
#54 David:
I have been here.
Just not said much.
18 Sep 2009, 09:54 am
keo made it made on to the telegraph’s top 20 rugby union websites:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/6200743/Top-20-Rugby-Union-websites.html
18 Sep 2009, 09:58 am
#58 superbowljoel:
I assume that’s based on the number of hits and superiority of the comments rather than the quality of the articles.
18 Sep 2009, 09:58 am
#40 DonutDunning:
“how could you ever describe either as mercurial?”
Seems to me that Ryan likes the sound of the word, but did not bother to check what it actually means.
18 Sep 2009, 09:59 am
#57 jondood:
Very wise, you must have mellowed in your old age.
18 Sep 2009, 09:59 am
#53 jondood: one outstanding season, now can they do it consistently ? after last years disappointment it must be refreshing to be a SA fan, but I would be worried that the Bok next year may crash as hard as the bulls did after their S14 in 07…
18 Sep 2009, 09:59 am
#56 siener: So you must have missed 11 of the Boks final games over the last 14 years in the Tri-Nations when they have had to play the Wallys and AB’s for nothing eh Cuz?
Typical pea brain comment.
18 Sep 2009, 10:01 am
Frontrow will be edged by the Aussies,seem to have a good understanding there but dont seem to trouble the AB’s like they do the Boks.
At lock,its much of muchness IMO.Thorn/Donnelly will add a hard physical edge to the effort plus will help out tremendously at breakdown.Lineouts/kickoffs will be even me thinks because Horwill/Chilsholm are not lineout exponents neither-both stand shorter than 1.95m.Aussies will edge lineout due to Elsom,who is a fine jumper.
The breakdown will be won by the AB’s.McCaw seems to be getting back to his high standards plus with the inclusion of Thompson ahead of Kaino what they lose in physicality they gain at the breakdown.Thompson has been a revelation on the ground in 2009-its the strongest part of his game plus his speed will help.THompson and McCaw in tandem will trump Pocock/Smith.Plus Read isnt bad on the ground neither.
Halfbacks-AB’s have a settled pair there,plus Carter returning to his sublime best in last 2 tests.His option taking has been superb.Genia/Giteau still developing-handy pair but Barnes will be crucial to Giteau’s play who hasnt been able to control games at 10 in 2009.
In midfield….Aussies more settled there,look soild and can penetrate.But AB’s FAR MORE TALENTED THERE.But also Jekyl/Hyde combo midfield is a gamble.Big,fast,eplosive BUT ALSO PRONE TO COCKUPS UNDER PRESSURE.Depends who shows up on the day but Toeava looked good last week.But Aussies edge in midfield
Back 3-will depend on who handles kick chase the best.AB’s more dangerous and with Jane there gives solidity under high ball.Mils is a rock at the back.Mitchell/Turner-solid but not world class-very pendantic speed wise.Young Oconnor is talented,can make any1 miss,but high ball is weak plus kicking game erratic as well.Both sides have problems here so EVEN stevens here.
AB’s by 3-5
18 Sep 2009, 10:02 am
#63 captain fantail: short memories that side of the world bro… must be all that high altitude
18 Sep 2009, 10:04 am
#45 poppa69: agree re Messam. Never was a huge fan, but this year he’s going great. Played one really good test this year, then gets dropped. Illogical!
18 Sep 2009, 10:05 am
#62 poppa69: yeah…. and just like the bulls they will win again in the following year… when it really matters….hey poppa…. will be devastating to witness…..especially in NZ!
18 Sep 2009, 10:06 am
#64 mshiniwami:
I have a feeling that this is going o be an open and very entertaining game. Sure, it doesn’t mean much as far as the 3N is concerned, but it may turn out to be the most entertaining of the whole competition.
18 Sep 2009, 10:10 am
#59 David: or maybe its just the quota 3rd world site
18 Sep 2009, 10:11 am
dare I say it, would aussie victory here with a bonus point not hand the kiwis the dreaded…. ahem… wooden spoon
18 Sep 2009, 10:14 am
#67 moedeloos: nah, dont you see, SA has just ended our cycle of being the best team inbetween, we were caught in it for quite a while, but now we can build a team 2 years out, which should be more productive, but hey its a world cup, hopefully we wont have to play any team ranked higher then 5th…
with favouritism, we know SA wont win it aye ? they never handle being favourites too well… or will they be cheated of opportunity because everyone knows its SA vs the rest of the world ?
#66 kiwirugbyfan: has some quality attributes, needs to become more of a team player, but has huge potential too…
18 Sep 2009, 10:21 am
#71 poppa69:
We’re seeded to meet in the semis if we both top our group and win our QFs. Otherwise, I think you’ll play the Wobblies for a place in the final.
18 Sep 2009, 10:25 am
#71 poppa69: spoken like a real NZ’der. if you really dont want the favourites tag in between WC’s why bother playing tests then…or is that just your angle and your sticking to it?
You guys must be getting desperate when you start talking like this. there is no such thing as peaking inbetween WC’s. (England 2003 as an example) its a knock-out tournament which can and will produce results that is not expected. but then i dont need to tell you…. you know all about it…. in fact 20 years worth….
believe whatever theory you want to believe… i know that you would rather be where we are now than where you are… the same way i wished we were the best team in the years before the last few WC’s.
Difference is now we know how to win in NZ (and that will add to the pressure you and your team will feel in addition to the stress you normally feel when WWE comes to town… go pre-order the prozac; i hear its great for anxiety) and our strike rate at WC’s is 50%. last time i checked that was the best in the world…….
18 Sep 2009, 10:36 am
#68 David:
Agreed,will be very cagey in first half.Second half could be fireworks as both team tend to peak in last 20 min.
Would like to see Nonu/Toeava light it up!!! In full flight they are a sight to behold..Me and Polynesian biase…lol
Could be one hell of a show
Breakdown and ref will decide flow of game though
18 Sep 2009, 10:36 am
Poppa69 and Captain Fantail , both of you have gone on about the success of the AB”s in the 3N’s. However I want to refer you to a comment made by an Irish journalist which was: “In fact, while New Zealand in the modern era may have a hold over South Africa, it was not until 1996 – under the captaincy of Seán Fitzpatrick – that the All Blacks won a Test series in South Africa for the first time.” This shows of course how incredibly close the rivalry and results had been up until then.
As a result I pose the question of whether or not the format of the 3N’s could have perhaps affected SA’s performances. I pose this question simply because if you look at our countries performances in tours and tournaments (such as the WC) there is not a lot to choose between our respective countries but when you add the 3N’s to the stats it tips the scales heavily in favour of the AB’s.
One other point and that is congratulations to the Bokke, the first side in the World to hold the WC,3N’s, Sevens,Super14 and number 1 ranking in the same year. Something worth celebrating.
18 Sep 2009, 10:37 am
#73 moedeloos: wow, youve had two wins in 11 years in NZ, against a team that first time was rated “worst AB team ever” by the geniuses on keo, this year we have been bombarded with injury and the like, remove Carters intercept and his poor pass to Roko when he had a clear run to the line and it may have been so different…
not getting desperate at all, we are at the end of a cycle and starting a new, SA will have this problem soon, if not next year then the danger year of 11, would hate to be blooding new players that year…
if your top team doesnt maintain their intensity and form they have shown this year over the next two, well, we’ve all seen the impact your bench has had all season…
18 Sep 2009, 10:38 am
#62 poppa69:
Maybe the Boks are not chokers like Graham Henry’s mix and match South Seas Barbarians? They have every cup or championship winner’s medal safely at home in the good old RSA. Maybe they will also add the next world cup to their stash! Intelligent money must be on the Boks – unless you are backing the current losers!
18 Sep 2009, 10:46 am
#75 bananaboy: thought Wales held the sevens ?? already congratulated SA on previous threads.. so how does adding Argentina help ? isnt that going to be a lot more travel still, wont this adversely affect the SA’s ?? being more travel then what they have already ?
as for taking us until 96 to win a series, considering it was only 20 odd years after passports were stamped “honorary”, therefore meaning our best players were there, one could argue all night about it and never reach a resolution
its funny how for a lot on here the no.1 rank wasnt important, now it is…
18 Sep 2009, 10:50 am
#76 poppa69: first… dont believe anything you read on Keo. the “worst AB team” tag is something he and Jake dreamed up to discredit PDV and any achievements the current group has.
secondly…. dont talk rugby on ifs and buts (if carter this and if Rocko was not injured…) if my brother had tits, he would have been my sister.
i really hope for your sake you are starting a new cycle. but remember 8 months before the 07 WC we were hore-shite….. i dont believe preparation and form years before the comp makes such a difference.(eg. our form 3 years before the 07 WC vs Englands form 3 years before the 03 WC)
the knock out phase is more important and being up for those games. given your history it will not matter if your cycle starts next month… what would matter is your teams mental state when they have to play France or the Boks knowing that if they lose they ‘stay’ home
The mind can be a terrible thing… they may start thinking that SA has recently been winning regurlarly in NZ and that France is always their bogey team…. you catch my drift?
18 Sep 2009, 10:51 am
#77 ZA1: haha another blind idiot who jumps on the cliche bandwagon, bravo for having an independant, intelligent thought…
gees, NZ werent granted the opportunity to have a fair go in 07, fact… you know it, I know it, two penalties in 80 minutes from a team that had 30 percent possession the whole match ? by a ref who hadnt even had a full year of international test match experience ?
if that were the Boks on the end of that you’d be just as annoyed…heck, it would have been a conspiracy…
just like the chorus of calls on here when you guys lost in Brissy and Barnes was reffing…
18 Sep 2009, 10:54 am
Bit of a meaningless crow to start the article, and in any event, a test match against two of the top nations in world rugby is always a very interesting spectacle.
I’m afraid NZ will have to much for this oz team, their selections have also improved, tho they still leaving out so’ialo which is incredibly foolish.
18 Sep 2009, 10:55 am
#79 moedeloos: agreed, it has become more a mental thing, and eventually we will break through.. I may never see it in my lifetime, but to assume we are always going to “choke” as people call it, which IMO belittles the oppositions efforts completely.. rather an insult, and considering its only SA/Aust/Fra that have toppled us in WC’s, I dont really find it too embarassing at all…
guess those that continue the chokers call really are admitting NZ was the best team at the time…
18 Sep 2009, 10:55 am
#6 bananas: I’d love to know what this aura about Deans is all about. Is it the Crusaders thing because from what I’ve seen from him he’s done nothing since taking over as coach. If anything the Wobblies have become weaker than before. They are pretty much wooden spoonists in this years Tri-Nations, they lost to Wales last year which is a serious regression and they’ve only won 1 match out of the last 5 yet Deans gets more credit than PdV who’s achieved so much this year already. A Kiwi colleague of mine at work tells me that Deans is the most overrated coach in rugby. He explained that Deans and Mitchell presided over the worst period in AB history back in 2002 and he’d rather see Henry there than Deans. Yes fine that’s one person’s opinion but taking his views into account putting them side by side with what Deans really has achieved and it begins to make sense. All we hear of is this dangerous potential Australia has but we never quite see it. Yes they gave us a scare in Brisbane but the Boks have an awful record there and they really were on their last legs during that game. You could see them struggling through the exhaustion in that match. The only reason why Aus has looked dangerous at times during the 3N is due to the Boks falling asleep after 60 minutes. If we could’ve got up to being an 80 minute team Perth might have been a 30 point hiding. I’m really not convinced Deans deserves all this praise he constantly gets.
18 Sep 2009, 11:03 am
#78 poppa69: Pops in that time when the passports were stamped honorary how different were the sides that toured Aus and the NH to the ones that toured SA just out of interests sake. It would be nice to see a comparison.
18 Sep 2009, 11:05 am
#84 bananaboy: And Poppa you are right we hold the sevens series title but not the sevens World Cup which is held by Wales
18 Sep 2009, 11:08 am
#83 Crouching Tiger Hidden Bokke: i think the “Deans is useless” sentiment might be premature. I like what he has done to their pack. Suddenly they are not the worst scrum in the world anymore.
Their backline will only get better once Mortlock partners Gits and Barnes. (and they find the right wings, and the scrumhalves dont pass behind the flyhalf all the bloody time)
I reckon keep him under strict performance based contract till next years TN and decide then. who else will do the job in Aus?
And Deans and his team only gets more credibility on this site cause of the love Keo has for the current Bok coach.
18 Sep 2009, 11:10 am
Erm – show a little respect there Ryan. At least for the All Blacks anyway.
They are after all the only side that REALLY matters to us in world rugby. The French are always entertaining, the Welsh, Scottish, Argentinians and Irish are interesting sideshows and the Wallabies and England are the sides we love to beat, because EVERYBODY loves beating them and then watching their national press and “supporters” tear shreds off them.
But the Kiwis are to be respected at ALL times. Not held in wonderment or awe…. just respected as the true test of Springbok strength.
It’s the rugby gospel.
18 Sep 2009, 11:11 am
#84 bananaboy: look mate, to be honest whats in the books stand, my point was we can all point to one thing or another to back up our claims… I believe it was the teams before 71 that were disadvantaged by not being able to play their best, and one or two can make a significant difference, imagine the Boks without Bakkies for example..
was only responding to what I considered arrogant claims by some after one super season… but hey, its all my opinion..
18 Sep 2009, 11:14 am
Deans is a good coach. No arguments, but would he have coached many other Super 14 teams to that many titles?
Were some of his shortcomings masked by the fact that he had such incredible talent at his disposal? Much like Henry a few years back.
That Crusaders team and by extension, the All Blacks were something special in terms of talent. I recall an All Blacks team selected with 14 Crusaders in the side! You could give that team to Straueli and he’d be hard-pressed to make a muff of it.
Is it a coincidence that both the Crusaders and the All Blacks have seen a decline in standards since the loss of so many of that Crusasders side?
18 Sep 2009, 11:16 am
#75 bananaboy:
Easy Campese:
NZ 9
SA 3
AUS 2
18 Sep 2009, 11:19 am
Deans is earning his money now
At the Saders he had the perfect structure,moulded under Smith and himself-even Blackadder looked good in 2009 with rookies all round
Had talent coming in bucketloads from the local region and throughout NZ
draft system acquisitions that were shrewd
Now he has the lean talent pool in OZ
Shortcuts taken in oz over the yrs have cost them dearly
Lack of national league also causing adverse effects
Plus contend with Aussie hype on their limited resources player wise plus over stating his own SUPERIORITY
18 Sep 2009, 11:22 am
#75 bananaboy: ..and also head to head we lead the race by 9 games over 100 years. Head to head really tells you who is the best, what more can we say?
18 Sep 2009, 11:23 am
Bananaboy
Three tours in 1928, 1949 and 1960 to South Africa excluded Maori players last century although “honorary whites” were allowed to tour the republic in 1970.
Former New Zealand Maori coach Matt Te Pou said the idea was a good one because teams were supposed to have been picked on merit, which didn’t happen.
“Icons of the game” such as George Nepia and JB Smith would have walked into the touring side if they had been allowed to go, he said.
Bill Wordley, a former New Zealand Maori hooker in the 1960s, said while it wasn’t certain he would have made an All Blacks side, the fact that he couldn’t trial based on being Maori was “clearly wrong”. “I would have enjoyed playing against them,” he said. “But that’s the way the system was back then.”
However, All Black flanker Waka Nathan, who was dubbed the Black Panther during the 1960s, wasn’t sold on the idea yesterday.
“To be quite honest I don’t believe in that. You’re either an All Black or you aren’t. You’re either a Maori All Black or not.”
He remembers a tour of South Africa in 1967 falling over, and he was happy that it did. South African Prime Minister John Vorster set three conditions for Maori touring: There shouldn’t be too many, they shouldn’t be too black and no controversy should surround their “selection and dispatch”.
Retrospective caps have never been awarded by the NZRU.
The NZRU’s chief executive, Steve Tew, said there were many examples of players who might have been All Blacks had it not been for some “extraordinary circumstance or another”.
“Clearly, there is a different set of issues regarding the apartheid era and tours and matches between South Africa and New Zealand but none that would suggest we can try and retrospectively judge who might or might not have been All Blacks had it not been for those issues.”
1928
George Nepia
1949
Ben Couch
JB Smith
1960
Waka Nathan
Pat Walsh
Mac Herewini
Tiny Hill
18 Sep 2009, 11:24 am
#90 captain fantail:
Always down playing SA’s dominance this yr
Even Reunion has been doing that-especially the poll questions “Are SA best in the world or are we making them out to be more than they are/weak NZ/OZ teams in generations”??
Sheesh..NZ aint pleased huh??going against ‘NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS’?
So all the times before when the AB’s were winning TRI nations it wasnt the OZ/SA teams being weak and was JUST NZ WERE THAT DAMN GOOD HUH…
Funny
18 Sep 2009, 11:24 am
This has to be one of the worst All Black teams in living memory. Nah I give this one to the wobblies.
18 Sep 2009, 11:30 am
#93 poppa69: Interesting and quite clearly wrong. Why such a good rivalry had to be spoilt by politics is a shame.
As Captain Fantail said its the Head 2 Heads that are important and NZ head that by 9 but I cannot help feeling that the tide is turning. My only concern is the impact a tunraround in fortunes between our countries would have on the game of Rugby Union and that League might take it place if the AB results start to falter.
18 Sep 2009, 11:34 am
#96 bananaboy:
The minute we did away with test series, was the minute it blurred any chance of trying to claim bragging rights.
Bring back the SA – AB test series.
18 Sep 2009, 11:39 am
#96 bananaboy: I said this the other day, considering its 9 games between the two in almost 80 games, shows how close it is… I was fortunate to be brought up with the SA/NZ rivalry as the top echelon of world rugby, still is in my opinion… bledisloe doesnt carry the same weight with me, though still nice, stops the cabinet from echoing lol
18 Sep 2009, 11:42 am
#97 Vetkoek: Vetkoek, agree would luv to see our nations touring each other again. Imagine a series against the AB’s and how much interest that would generate in other countries let alone in NZ or SA.- like B&I Lions series did.
Also the midweek games would give the opportunity to develop your second string and your bench. Only problem is that there are a lot more countries playing rugby so it has gone the way of football with friendlies etc.
18 Sep 2009, 11:47 am
No I have to watch it.
Need to see who ends 3rd.
Aussies will be frustrated; Kiwis devastated.
18 Sep 2009, 11:54 am
#90 captain fantail:
ah, cap’n fanny has decided to surface, almost as rare as the lesser-spotted kiwi, i feel honored to have made such a rare sighting on the back of an AB loss, now we just need his main mucker Hurricane, and its well and truly a lucky find.
18 Sep 2009, 12:29 pm
from rugbyheaven
“THE All Blacks pack began trying to psyche out their opponents yesterday, warning that if the Wallabies scrum wasn’t careful, another Test prop would be heading back to club football.”
18 Sep 2009, 12:30 pm
and the war of words continue
“ALL BLACKS fullback Mils Muliaina has offered advice to his opposite James O’Connor that the best way to prepare for taking high balls in the swirling Wellington winds is to keep the hotel curtains closed tomorrow morning.”
18 Sep 2009, 12:41 pm
As an aside, which Griquas players do you think will make the Cheetahs S14 squad?
Sarel Pretorius, Naas Olivier, Trompie Nontshinga, Riaan Viljoen…
But the forwards? Props? Locks? Loosies?
Will Mokuena get looked over again?
18 Sep 2009, 13:09 pm
Hi there All
Just popped in for a few minutes to read the latest happenings at keo.
Have enjoyed the celebrations of late, surrounding our champion Bok team.
Ryan’s not really wrong when he suggests tomorrow is a bit of a dead-rubber game, cos I think he’s referring to the general South African perspective on the game.
And quite frankly, if you look at the polls about tomorrow’s game, there seems to be an overwhelming feeling of “who cares”.
Well, ordinarily I’d say that I don’t care either, but actually I do. And why do I care?
Simple, because I absolutely detest the Wallabies, and would like them to realise that their one lone Tri Nations win over the Boks was just that – a backs to the wall fight from a desperate bunch, who simply HAD TO save themselves from the gallows. And did so against the world’s best team (that is praiseworthy, I will concede).
But I cannot help but wonder just how “into that game” the Boks were. From the kickoff they just seemed to be tired or lethargic and despite only being 3 points adrift at the break, they didn’t seem to be too interested in getting stuck in after halftime.
Much like the interest or enthusiasm shown by an elephant when challenged by a mouse!!!
C’mon now folks – we’d already “DONE” the whinging wallabies by then, and were already focussed on tying things up in Hamilton, against our traditional, real rivals – the world number 2 All Blacks.
So the wannabees got themselves a lifeline. Tell someone who cares. One Tri Nations win in 7 (it’ll be 8 tomorrow!) is hardly enough to suggest a recovery of any kind!!
So go Richie, Dan & the Boys of the Silver Fern. As World Number Ones, we prefer you guys as our “wingmen” to the arrogant australians.
And all my fellow Keonians – the real big game of the year awaits us at Croke Park in Dublin fair city on 28th November – when the 6 Nations Champs go head to head with the Tri Nations champs – World Number 4 against World Number 1!!
What a juicy prospect.
Who do you think will be the conquerors in THAT clash???
18 Sep 2009, 13:17 pm
I hate the Irish! Ok, fate got back at O’Gara so maybe I can finally forgive him. I feel the Irish contingent caused a lot of animousity during the Lions tour. Will be a tough tour, France too!
18 Sep 2009, 13:18 pm
Actually, thinking about it….. Doesn’t say much for the 6 Nations that the 2nd and 3rd placed Tri Nations teams are higher ranked than the 6N champs in the world rankings.
Hardly a position of prestige for our friends in the NH.
Could THAT be the reason for the IRB’s jaundiced and rabid hatred of the Souther Hemisphere Giants – especially SA!!
After all, the pale faces of the North cannot mete out ANY suffering or punishment against the TNS teams on the field of play…….so they take their jealous fury out on us in the boardrooms and at the judicial hearings and when dishing out instructions to their large crop of mostly incompetent referees and touch judges!
18 Sep 2009, 13:25 pm
#106 Lions_Soutie: Hey there Lions_Soutie. Can’t say I agree with you mate. I was WITH the Lions team throughout their tour (was involved with their commercial programme, so saw them all day every day) – and I can safely inform you that it was not the Irishmen who caused any animosity. In fact, they’re really great guys. O’Connell, O’Driscoll, Tommy Bowe, Donncha O’Callaghan, Lukie Fitgerald and the other Irish boys were really good guys.
Unfortunately – if I were forced to identify any less than nice guys, it would have to be a few of the Welshmen and the English in the squad. Not all – just some – but THEY are the ones who still remind one of the Colonialist days, if any!!!
18 Sep 2009, 13:27 pm
#93 mshiniwami: What a load of bulldust. I’ve been reading the Aussie rugby websites religiously for a couple of years now and have seen none of this “Aussie hype on their limited resources player wise plus over stating his own SUPERIORITY”. The fact is that we know we are playing with a smaller pool of players than SA and NZ, because our best athletes are going into Aussie-rules and NRL. If those players were going straight into rugby union you lot would be stuffed. That isn’t likely to happen though unless something drastic changes, because if anything Aussie-rules is on the rise.
Having said that your good results this year seem to have blinded you to the fact that Aus have scored some good results against you in recent times. Maybe we haven’t won the Trinations for a fair while, but in the last 10 years you’ve come last more than we have. In the history of the tournament we’ve lost only one game more than your lot, having played one game less. Given the restriction Aussie rugby operates under (no national comp for one thing), that’s pretty bloody good. Take away your domestic comps, knock your player numbers down a bit and let’s see how well you do.
18 Sep 2009, 13:45 pm
#63 captain fantail:
#65 poppa69:
You guys seem to think that I said that I do this every year. Well I didn’t. This is a nice change from the usual.
18 Sep 2009, 13:46 pm
#109 SJonesIsAGit:
SA has hardly scraped its potential neither.Its well documented that even though our rugby structures are strong,we are only operating out of possibly 4/5 million of a population of 48 million.So harp on about the NRL/Aussie Rules taking all the talent yada yada yada,every country has its restrictions and those claims are not absolute at all.
Year after year OZ is the nation with the biggest hype around their team/youngsters etc etc,your media is to your dentiment at present as they create unreasonable/unsustainable expectations.A few years ago OZ had the most dynamic back division,back talent pool with likes of Tune,Roff,Burke,Larkham etc etc
Look barren at present and doesnt look to be letting up neither.Most promising player from age group are Matt Toomua and Richard Kingie…And they look a tad bit on the small side for Test footy.Much like Beale the predecessor.
Hype machine Oz
18 Sep 2009, 14:00 pm
#113 mshiniwami: “Every country has its restrictions”, yes, but some restrictions are far more telling than others. They are far from equal. Compare SA’s restrictions to those of Japan, for instance.
And I still think your claims of Aussie media hype are bollocks. We back our players to do well against all comers. They often do. We get disappointed when they don’t. We get excited by new prospects. We get excited to see our team do well. None of that excitement comes close to the frenzy of saffas about every minute aspect of their team.
18 Sep 2009, 14:07 pm
#109 SJonesIsAGit: \
From the IRB Website.
Total Number of Registered Players:
SA ……511,000
Japan….122,000
England..698,000
Scotland..32,000
NZ…….139,000
Oz……..82,000
Australia does extremely well given there talent pool.
SA on the other hand, have player depth, greater than Scotland, Oz, Japan, Samoa, Fiji and NZ combined.
Why they strut like Kings (well JC and Ryan do anyway)is beyond me.
Same as Big Hits Mob. They lose to Scotland. Every Jock Rugby Player is out numbered 21 to 1 by the Anglo/Normans.
Gives new meaning to Scotland the Brave.
18 Sep 2009, 14:19 pm
#113 cane: you can easily add 50 000 players available to NZ if you add in Fiji (think Sivivatu), Tonga (think Lomu) and Samoa (Jones).
18 Sep 2009, 14:22 pm
#113 cane: Cane, much harder to get the selection right when you have so much to choose from.
18 Sep 2009, 14:24 pm
#112 SJonesIsAGit:
“None of that excitement comes close to the frenzy of saffas about every minute aspect of their team.’
WTF??? Are you sure?? Kafer,Smithie,Kearnsy???Zaparo(planet-rugby guys etc)
Hype CENTRAL
18 Sep 2009, 14:25 pm
For What it’s worth. My 3N All Stars team: (so far).
1. Woodcock.NZ
2. Bismark.SA
3. Beast.SA
4. Matfield.SA
5. Bakkies.SA
6. Rocky.OZ
7. Ritchie.NZ
8. Spies.SA
9. F deP. SA
10. Gitts.OZ
11. Hababanana, SA
12. Barnes.OZ
13. Jaque the Spear Tackler. SA
14. Stivatu. NZ
15. Mils. NZ
18 Sep 2009, 14:33 pm
#105 jonty on sport:
Jonty Rhodes I presume? Nice post and I am glad to hear that you too detest the criminals.
18 Sep 2009, 14:35 pm
#103 pvz.shark: it is quite easy for the criminal to hit back – just mention the words 24 YEARS on the field and then tadaaa … instant kiwi mental failure.
18 Sep 2009, 14:38 pm
I’d change a bit cane
1. Robinson and 3. Smit (c)
12 nonu
18 Sep 2009, 14:39 pm
#114 RedLion:
Jonah….born Auckland , NZ.
Micheal Jones…Born Auckland , NZ.
Sitivatu……..has been in NZ since he was 13 years old.
When did Beastie Boy turn up in SA?
You and the likes of you are PHUCKEN HYPOCRITES.
(Who happen to outnumber us, the Good-Guys, 4 to 1).
18 Sep 2009, 14:39 pm
#118 RedLion:
Eish snagglepuss, Aussies are ‘Convicts’ so am I correct in you tagging the Kiwis as criminals. Terminology is everything if you are tagging.
Now you may toss about ‘semantics’ but what they hay or is it hey?
18 Sep 2009, 14:42 pm
#121 cane: Rocket Joe was a toddler immigrant too.
#114 RedLion: I have to say if you think the All Blacks are a team sprinkled with Pacific Islanders then you would have to call the Bok’teas a total farce. I don’t count a whole lot of real Africans (black fellas) let alone real South Africans.
Be careful mate you really are a moron to argue the moot point.
18 Sep 2009, 14:46 pm
#120 cab:
Concerning Captain Marvelous.
One good scrum…..70 minutes into his final Test Match of the Tournament, is not enough to get Mr Smit into MY Team.
LOL……..But I can see why 90% of Saffas would have him.
18 Sep 2009, 14:46 pm
#122 oodles:
Ok I give you Beastie but the rest of the Championship team were all born and bred in the RSA.
18 Sep 2009, 14:47 pm
Idiots done and dusted for the day.
Cheers all.
18 Sep 2009, 14:48 pm
#125 RedLion:
p.s. not poached as infants.
18 Sep 2009, 14:48 pm
#125 RedLion: Snagglepuss, you totally evade the point. South Africa is predominantly black yet the Bok’teas do not have a fair representation of their aboriginal people. Therefore it is totally irrational to throw stones. Many you guys are chucking f’kn house bricks.
18 Sep 2009, 14:50 pm
Keonians I am outta here too.
18 Sep 2009, 14:50 pm
The world is changing, people move about and reside where they deem appropriate. If not for that simple fact there would not be on whitey/coloured in the Springbok team.
Be realistic and not antagonistic.
18 Sep 2009, 14:50 pm
#124 cane:
fair enough, but i’d select Smit under the new rules for his mobility and work in the tightloose, which has been unbelievable and one of the real reasons for the bok dominance and why most can’t live with their intensity for the first 60min or so.
18 Sep 2009, 14:57 pm
#123 oodles:
????????????????????
18 Sep 2009, 14:58 pm
#71 poppa69: Poppa, is that mere speculation, or is there some sound reasoning for your conclusion??
Way I see it, barring serious injury, all the Boks that quite frankly spanked the All Blacks will still be around in 2011, so no need to build, just refine!!
In fact, the Boks may be even more imposing then, as some of the young stars gain experience…
I refer to Spies, Brussow, both Steyn’s and Beast… and there is no shortage of young talent coming through the system!
With regards to your asnine statement about playing teams ranked 5th, all I can say is it’s not our fault the AB’s lose against these minnows before we can play against them…. and at this rate, NZ might just be ranked 5th !!
No I am kidding, NZ will be in the top three as will SA and the Wobblies!!!
But it is the ultimate pressure situation for NZ’landers, heaven forbid they lose in anything but the finals at home in 2011!! Imagine the pressure lol, and we know what pressure does to the AB’s, especially the World Cup kind of pressure!!
Go Boks !!!
18 Sep 2009, 15:00 pm
#124 cane:
one good scrum …. do me a favour he had woody on a leash nudging his pocket for dog chews..
18 Sep 2009, 15:02 pm
#131 cab:
Over half my team were from the Republic of Eye-Gougers cab…………..I can’t be fairer than that.
As my Co-Selector….I’ll bow to your wisdom….and put John Smit in the Number 17 Jersey.
He can cover 2 front row positions so very usefull.
18 Sep 2009, 15:04 pm
#134 gunther:
That’s more likely due to the muscle behind the Props….Bakkies and Victoria.
18 Sep 2009, 15:06 pm
#105 jonty on sport: The Irish are gonna get clapped – they had many great players in the Linos squad but there were many Welsh in there too. If we can take the Lions we can take the half strength Irish for sure. Its going to be tough no doubt. Likewise with France. I think if they can beat the All Blacks theyre not too be written off – they seem to reserve their best performances for the Southern Hemisphere teams. Theyre an old nemesis team for us. Seeing as we didnt play either in the World Cup or last year it is a juicy prospect indeed. We have walloped the All Blacks, Wallabies and Wales, so all thats left in the top 5 is Ireland and France. Beat them and that goes a long way to sutting every single mouth about wether we are deserving world champs or not.
18 Sep 2009, 15:10 pm
#135 cane:
lol, no i suppose not, but 5-1 in the 3n probably reflects that dominance of the team – i think your no 8 choice was a bit gratuitous, since spies is still learning the ropes, but he is getting better and better.
18 Sep 2009, 15:12 pm
#88 poppa69: Agree with the thinking Poppa, but then in fairness, that same malady has bitten the Boks on the *** since 1994. We have often had to field players, not regarded as the best in their positions to make up “demographic political targets” so in fairness, this comparison will not get us anywhere.
I have no knowledge of this, but was the Maori/Polenesian influence that strong back then ??
18 Sep 2009, 15:27 pm
#117 cane:
1. Robinson,OZ
2. Bismark.SA
3. Smit(c).SA
4. Matfield.SA
5. Bakkies.SA
6. Rocky.OZ
7. Brussow.SA
8. Spies.SA
9. F deP. SA
10. Carter.NZ
11. Habana, SA
12. De Villiers.SA
13. Smith NZ
14. JPP. SA
15. Mils. NZ
18 Sep 2009, 15:35 pm
#133 Cheetah 4 Eva: You are 100% correct about the pressure – plan B tactic if we lose we will close down Auckland Airport so no one will get out alive ! Seriously the pressure will be immense , but maybe it will be a good thing if the ABs dont go into the WC as favourites …. Everytime they have it has been a disaster.
18 Sep 2009, 15:35 pm
#128 oodles: The same question was directed at our coach after we won the Tri-Nations, by another political lobby!! TARC or something
The answer is simple, many blacks prefer soccer, cricket or athletic’s !!
Same reason why you see virtually no white players in the national soccer team…
If there are black, coloured, or whatever player that is the best in his position, he will most certainly play!!!
There is a constant demansd by politicians for black representation in the Bok team, but they don’t do anything to promote or develop interest amongst blacks !!!
Why is there no demand for soccer to have white representation???
We as South African Rugby supportes want the best players playing for our country, we don’t care about their skin colour, we just want to WIN!!!!
18 Sep 2009, 15:37 pm
#140 mshiniwami: No Richie or Smith ??? Think Brussow, good year that he has had , has been found out now and next season will be interesting to see if he is the true article or a flash in the pan.
18 Sep 2009, 15:45 pm
#143 stew:
We shall see
But in this yr’s 3N he has been the best opensider,especially the home matches for SA he was influencial more than Smith/McCaw have been the entire tournament
Smith and McCaw is class player but Ratel Brussow in 2009-edges them.
18 Sep 2009, 15:47 pm
#124 cane: Would you like a fresh lemon to go with your grapes Sir? They are particularly sour at this time of year.
18 Sep 2009, 17:05 pm
hope the blacks win to shut those arrogant wallabies up
18 Sep 2009, 17:18 pm
#105 jonty on sport: Absolutely embarrassing. Surely this is beneath you?
18 Sep 2009, 17:58 pm
Problem with the boks is that despite being dominant, and the scoreboard doesn’t lie, its hard to really revere the team because of the style they play.
Personally think the boks were very consistant, but also lucky to beat the lions who were the better team over the 3 tests. The refereeing, particularly the first test was dreadful.
As for the Dublin game, boks will come in as the definite favourites, but the Irish players will have 6 weeks of pre-season together under their belts and maybe the team will come together and deliver an upset.
18 Sep 2009, 18:14 pm
#117 cane:
1. Beast
2. BDP
3. Smit (c)
4. Bakkies
5. Matfield
6. Smith
7. Brussow
8. Spies
9. FDP
10. Steyn
11. Habana
12. Barnes
13. Fourie
14. JPP
15. Steyn
and before you argue, take a look at the Tri Nations table.
SA have 21 points to NZ and Aus’s paltry 8 & 9. NZ and Aus have both been beaten at home and thoroughly dominated away winning an unprecedented 5 out of 6, they’re effectively twice as good.
Only Berrick Barnes makes into the SA side at the moment for his superb marshalling of the Australian backline and because JDV put in a number of under-par performances.
The no. of underperforming NZ players you have in your team is a joke.
18 Sep 2009, 18:16 pm
#146 mbaxman93: Yeh boet! I lost serious respect for the Wobblies after they have behaved on and off the field – by off the field I mean the players, coaching staff and even their press failing to acknowledge or give any credit to the Boks whatsoever. They’ve really pissed me off and I will never ever support Aus against another team ever again.
In fact I’ve been very impressed with how gracious the ABs are in defeat and I have new found admiration for them. They have also been no near as dirty as the Aussies. They are now my 2nd favourite team after my glorious Boks (a country mile ahead though) and I will now be supporting the ABs when they are not playing the Boks. From Mils ‘baie dankie’ at Loftus and Ritchie’s speech when they handed out the 3Ns trophies at Hamilton, they’ve been damn good sports so come on ABs kick some Wallabie arse tomorrow!
18 Sep 2009, 18:18 pm
#150 Crouching Tiger Hidden Bokke: Oh and the day the Boks and the ABs stop playing each other is the day rugby dies! Last week’s match was the epitome of SH rugby and what the fierce rivalry is all about. Tense, brutal edge of your seats stuff watching two of the best teams in the world slog it out-flippin brilliant!
18 Sep 2009, 18:39 pm
#147 SodaJoe:
its not the real jonty….
18 Sep 2009, 19:05 pm
#83,150,151 crouching tiger!
the content of #83 blog is so inadequate and incorrect and now the reason is explained in #150.
without the emotions, you should have noted the superiority of the Wallabies team against your beloved World Champs on the Brissy game at least. and to put that down to a world champion team who were tiring and did not put on their best display on the day is an insult to the Wallabies. in fact, it was a very depressiong sight to see World Champion Boks almost losing it at the death because they ran out of puff in the last 10mins in Hamilton. i was glad the Boks won though but what if the last Carter kick was 5m shorter, game over,for the Boks ha.
on pregame show, Skinstad and Jones were asked for their predictions, skinstad said , about 3 to the Boks, and Jones said more than 15 to the ABs.. skinstad was gobsmacked indeed and so was I. Even David Kirk, the ABs capt went on to predict an annihilation of the Boks coz the ABs have more to reasons to win the game!. I thought that was just so ARROGANT by these previous ABs to not acknowledge this great Boks team which the Aussie media and rugby fans do admit to. that is called Respecting the Enemy but still acknowledging their merits.
I dont know where your prejudice for the Wallabies came from i hope you can take more time to analyse the games properly next time.
18 Sep 2009, 19:18 pm
#152 Crouching Tiger Hidden Bokke: Fair enough — you’re entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that the Bok supporters were far from gracious in defeat after Brisbane. Popular views aired on this site included:
1. the boks had deliberately lost in order to lull the ABs into a false sense of security
2. Wayne Barnes had been instructed to make sure the Wallabies won to keep the 3N alive
3. Wayne Barnes called against the Boks because he doesn’t like them
4. all non-SA refs are out to get the Boks because they are biased against them
5. the wallabies were cheating in the scrums and breakdown — hence the win
Perfunctory congratulations were sometimes offered by way of preface or postscript to lengthy rants on why the wallabies didn’t deserve the win.
Personally I think the sudden love for the ABs on this site has more to do with the fact that they decently lost all their matches against the Boks than anything else.
18 Sep 2009, 19:58 pm
#152 gunther: I know it’s not Mr Rhodes. But hat an embarrassing post. Amateur.
Howzit?
18 Sep 2009, 21:15 pm
#154 SJonesIsAGit: actually its not love for the AB rather its peoples hate for the wallabies thts making us all pray for the Blacks to do business tomorw and destroy the aussies. i’m personally hoping the aussies get thrashed just so i can hear the ridiculous excuses from the aussie media
19 Sep 2009, 00:12 am
#101 cab: Cab maybe you havent been here yourself- I’ve been on everyday up to and including the day of the game, the day after our defeat and nearly everyday since?
There is no reason for me not to- I thought the Boks played a great game and were deserved winners of the game and series. Sure, disappointing for us but good for the game to have a different winner. Looking forward to the Argies joining in the fray, this will take on a real tournament atmosphere with El latino’s beating the drums. Cheers.
19 Sep 2009, 00:14 am
#157 captain fantail: ..slight correction, three days prior to game I think I was unable to connect to Keo, it was suffering bighit syndrome- very slow
19 Sep 2009, 00:27 am
#75 bananaboy: SA has lots to be happy and proud about and a year like they have never had before( I think). If NZ had that Silverware we would be hooting too and as I have said more often than not at least SA is showing what defending and current World Champs should be doing– winning or at least putting up a good showing, not like the one hit wonders the Poms.
The next big challenge for the Boks is too be able to maintain it and it will be a big one. NZ will regroup, Australia is improving out of sight with every outing and both as we know are hungry and proud. This all makes for exciting rugby for us. Are we at all surprised, really that the Boks have regained the No1 mantle and had a series of wins and successes- NO, not at all. They have been hot contenders and leaders on and off for years and its no disgrace (in all honesty)to lose to them and for them to take this series.
Do i really think this was the best outings we have seen from the AB’s and Wallys- well blind freddy knows it was’nt but really apart from general banter its the $1000,000.00 question who would have won ‘IF’… and speculating is really all it is. Hopefully we will be settled next year and put on a better performance.
19 Sep 2009, 00:33 am
#159 captain fantail: A gracious post.
19 Sep 2009, 03:38 am
Personally, I don’t care who wins, both teams were spanked by daddy Bokke. If it were up to me, I’d cancel all remaining Trinations/Bledisloe matches. Give the people their money back, as the entertainment value between these two wooden spoon contenders will just not be up there.
I mean, please man… these people don’t want to watch this, but then they think of the money they spent buying the tickets.
It reminds me of when the All Blacks played for the 3rd/4th play off in the rwc… oh wait, that was between France and Argentina… All Blacks came 8th… how silly of me.
19 Sep 2009, 04:28 am
#160 SodaJoe: /cheers!
#161 Kobus Kitty:
Three other things you forgot. Nobody G.A.F what you think and secondly the reason it is’nt up to you is because they need people with rationale ansd some intelligence in charge, thirdly this has nothing at all to do with SA now, its a pride issue between us, just like when the Boks have had to play for second place 11 (eleven times) in the same series..tosser:-D
19 Sep 2009, 05:25 am
GO WALLABIES!!!! END THESE ARROGANT CHUMPS!!!
19 Sep 2009, 05:31 am
#163 Big Hit: the need to live vicariously through another team BH is not a good look…
shame, you cant even put your tongue deeply into the ******* that is the crack of SA rugby this weekend, sure you wont suffer withdrawals ?
19 Sep 2009, 05:35 am
#164 poppa69: lighten up pops, you know the ABs are gonna win anyway
19 Sep 2009, 05:38 am
#162 captain fantail:
Ok, you go and enjoy your match. I might watch some of it, only to snicker at the rubbish skill levels of both teams when compared to the Boks.
I can tell you, winning the Trinations doesn’t even come close to winning the World Cup… not that you would know.
19 Sep 2009, 05:50 am
#165 Big Hit: but I will laugh heartily if they don’t
19 Sep 2009, 06:07 am
I doubt AB’s will pull this off, aussies should just take this with the pressure they will apply.
19 Sep 2009, 07:20 am
#168 TheBoksAreBack: why, cause the island players have decide to revolt rascist ???
19 Sep 2009, 07:31 am
If you take into account the NZ Cavalier tours to SA, where 4 tests were played, which NZ only won 1 out of the 4 played – if we take that into account then:
Played 82
Boks Won: 37
Boks Los: 43
Drawn: 3
If you ready wikipedia – it notes the Springboks were the best rugby test team – “Until the 1990′s South Africa was easily the most successful rugby nation in Test match history”
19 Sep 2009, 07:33 am
I think it is just a matter of time until the ledger is back where it belongs, back int he Boks favour against the ABs. Time will tell. Respect to both the Boks and ABs.
19 Sep 2009, 07:37 am
#170 WORLD CHAMPS: why would you count the cavaliers ? they were and are not an official NZ side.. therefore they dont count… sorry
19 Sep 2009, 08:06 am
#172 poppa69: Barring Kirwan that was your full side so why not count it , what’s in a name ??
19 Sep 2009, 08:09 am
#154 SJonesIsAGit:
Completely incorrect on the final statement SJ.
There has always been more respect between the NZ and SA players and supporters than between any other international teams.
In my opinion its the benchmark of international rugby and whatever the ledger reads now, this game has a funny way of going in swings and roundabouts.
Yes we may have beaten the Blacks this year but we have been handed more defeats in the recent past.
SA just has a better side right now and hopefully for a year or two to come. That doesnt, however, mean it will always be the case.
19 Sep 2009, 09:24 am
#172 poppa69:
Just like your 1987 world cup doesn’t count because the Springboks weren’t invited.
19 Sep 2009, 09:33 am
ABs by 5-10 points. A desperate kiwi side will turn in on today!
19 Sep 2009, 09:36 am
#173 justrugby: they were never sanctioned by the NZRU, hence the boycott at the olympics… the count stands at 42-33… no matter how you try to dress it… they were not given full test match status… therefore they dont count..
#175 Kobus Kitty: you werent invited because you were still involved in apartheid, no ones fault but your own there… some of you havent change since then either huh kitty ??
20 Sep 2009, 00:38 am
please note first posting on this thread
20 Sep 2009, 08:40 am
It is interesting to note, that with the Wallabies – they have certainly had the travel advantage along with the ABs – yet the Boks have a better win ratio than the Wallabies – so some respect to the Boks in that regard. I know that I sound like a bitter Bok supporter going on about the travel – and yes, perhaphs it has nothing to do with it? But I pose the question -what if SA was right next to Australia and the ABs were the ones having to do massive travel? Wonder what the records would show?
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.