[2014 TRC] South Africa v New Zealand in Johannesburg (04/10/2014)

[Jack Reacher]

So far NZ has been doing a sterling job of that so no reason to start- if I can translate an Afrikaans idiom- 'going to look for the baboon beyond the mountain'; looking for trouble/issues that aren't current or relevant.

Haha not sure what the hell that means! Yes I get the dynamic part of it and I'm not complaining it just seems a little unfair to ANY no1 ranked team that they can be overtaken so easily. Surely due to rugbys obsession with bonus points there should be a 'four wins in a row' bonus or something. For arguments sake in NZ lose this week, which is a possibility as they don't really have much to play for other than pride then slip up at Twickenham again due to fatigue we could finish the season number 2 - would ANYONE agree with that!

 

[nickdnz]

Haha not sure what the hell that means! Yes I get the dynamic part of it and I'm not complaining it just seems a little unfair to ANY no1 ranked team that they can be overtaken so easily. Surely due to rugbys obsession with bonus points there should be a 'four wins in a row' bonus or something. For arguments sake in NZ lose this week, which is a possibility as they don't really have much to play for other than pride then slip up at Twickenham again due to fatigue we could finish the season number 2 - would ANYONE agree with that!

Well in that situation, in which case South Africa would also not have to lose a game on the EOYT, they would have lost two games this year and we would have lost two games and had a draw...technically it would be 1-1 to NZ vs South Africa. So yeah, makes sense. It's easier not to think of the rankings as a ***le, but a prediction of most current form.

 

[Jack Reacher]

Well in that situation, in which case South Africa would also not have to lose a game on the EOYT, they would have lost two games this year and we would have lost two games and had a draw...technically it would be 1-1 to NZ vs South Africa. So yeah, makes sense. It's easier to think of the rankings as a ***le, instead of as a prediction of form.

No I agree, but the rankings are supposed to be a rolling thing hence no benefit to an out of season country and a reward for constant form. NZ had a 4 point lead after the world cup and still only really have a four point lead 3 years later with only one loss, should be more IMO. But you're right it does end up like a finals series which it shouldn't.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Haha not sure what the hell that means! Yes I get the dynamic part of it and I'm not complaining it just seems a little unfair to ANY no1 ranked team that they can be overtaken so easily. Surely due to rugbys obsession with bonus points there should be a 'four wins in a row' bonus or something. For arguments sake in NZ lose this week, which is a possibility as they don't really have much to play for other than pride then slip up at Twickenham again due to fatigue we could finish the season number 2 - would ANYONE agree with that!

Okay, firstly, for that to happen, SA would first have to beat NZ, then England has to beat NZ and SA has to beat England. That is possible but certainly not probable I'd think.Let's say it does turn out that way. Given that scenario I'd say it'd be a fair result for SA to go ahead to 1 seeing that- for this year in isolation- SA and NZ would've traded wins each at home and NZ lost to a team SA managed to beat. Fair enough if you look at the 'here and now'. Past results are past results and don't count towards the future other than giving your current position and only count toward future results as a rather trustworthy indicator. Last Nick_NZ said, last time you weren't numero uno was when SA won 3 straight and promptly surrendered the position thereafter since we couldn't keep up the results. I suppose it depends on one seeing the rankings as a short term form indicator rather than a fair reflection of 'history'. Even then it is flawed in that everyone don't face everyone in a short time span. The best illustration of this is Argentina being 12th since they face the best and Wales was 9th during the RWC draws. No-one would say those are/were fair reflections. So if you attack the system on that basis, then I say fair enough.

But for the purpose of determining top spot, since the top team face off regularly I'd say it gives a fair enough reflection in the short term and I'll say again; Worry about the baboon if and when he shows his face and don't go looking for him.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Haha not sure what the hell that means! Yes I get the dynamic part of it and I'm not complaining it just seems a little unfair to ANY no1 ranked team that they can be overtaken so easily. Surely due to rugbys obsession with bonus points there should be a 'four wins in a row' bonus or something. For arguments sake in NZ lose this week, which is a possibility as they don't really have much to play for other than pride then slip up at Twickenham again due to fatigue we could finish the season number 2 - would ANYONE agree with that!

You have to look at it a bit less subjectively. Because NZ is number 1, they can only play teams lower ranked than them, so they can't get rewarded as much as the teams ranked lower than them. If SA wins this weekend, the gap will be narrower, but remember after this, it's the EOYT where SA will also be playing lower ranked teams than them. So if NZ were to lose again against England, and South Africa wins against Ireland, the gap between SA and NZ will narrow even more, but SA will not get bonus points or whatever else either as Ireland are ranked far lower than them.

I think the system works rather well.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

It is the burden of the strong to stay strong and not falter if they want to keep their heads up high! The weak, while they have everything to gain, have the burden of carrying the truth that they are the weaker and can only aspire to overcome those above them. This is a neverending cycle and serves the purpose of maintaining strength at the top for the greater glory of rugby. Whether any given team is replaced or not does not matter in the greater scheme of things..

-Stormer2010

 

[TRF_heineken]

It is the burden of the strong to stay strong and not falter if they want to keep their heads up high! The weak, while they have everything to gain, have the burden of carrying the truth that they are the weaker and can only aspire to overcome those above them. This is a neverending cycle and serves the purpose of maintaining strength at the top for the greater glory of rugby. Whether any given team is replaced or not does not matter in the greater scheme of things..

-Stormer2010

LAME!!!

Haha, just joking! Not bad.

I look at it this way, if you are top, then you can't go higher, so the only way to move is down. It's just a matter of time.

 

[Chikwa]

Haha not sure what the hell that means! Yes I get the dynamic part of it and I'm not complaining it just seems a little unfair to ANY no1 ranked team that they can be overtaken so easily. Surely due to rugbys obsession with bonus points there should be a 'four wins in a row' bonus or something. For arguments sake in NZ lose this week, which is a possibility as they don't really have much to play for other than pride then slip up at Twickenham again due to fatigue we could finish the season number 2 - would ANYONE agree with that!

I think the fatigue slipped in after wrapping up the championship in Argentina.I agree with your reasoning regarding the ranking system.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Bok Team Announced:

15 Willie le Roux, 14 Cornal Hendricks, 13 Jan Serfontein, 12 Jean de Villiers (captain), 11 Bryan Habana, 10 Handre Pollard, 9 Francois Hougaard, 8 Duane Vermeulen, 7 Teboho Mohoje, 6 Marcell Coetzee, 5 Victor Matfield, 4 Eben Etzebeth, 3 Jannie du Plessis, 2 Bismarck du Plessis, 1 Tendai Mtawarira

Substitutes: 16 Adriaan Strauss, 17 Trevor Nyakane, 18 Marcel van der Merwe, 19 Bakkies Botha, 20 Schalk Burger, 21 Cobus Reinach, 22 Pat Lambie, 23 JP Pietersen

 

[Darwin]

Pretty handy looking Boks side! Good from a South African perspective to see both Vermeulen and Habana (not so good from a NZ perspective...). Personally I would have thought Burger would have warranted a start ahead of Mohoje. Bismark is back starting too, which I think this a good choice by South Africa, as I believe taking on the AB's physically is the best way to disrupt their game-plan.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Pretty damn lame, yes. I have to take it easy on the 'attack on ***an'.

Bok Team Announced:

15 Willie le Roux, 14 Cornal Hendricks, 13 Jan Serfontein, 12 Jean de Villiers (captain), 11 Bryan Habana, 10 Handre Pollard, 9 Francois Hougaard, 8 Duane Vermeulen, 7 Teboho Mohoje, 6 Marcell Coetzee, 5 Victor Matfield, 4 Eben Etzebeth, 3 Jannie du Plessis, 2 Bismarck du Plessis, 1 Tendai Mtawarira

Substitutes: 16 Adriaan Strauss, 17 Trevor Nyakane, 18 Marcel van der Merwe, 19 Bakkies Botha, 20 Schalk Burger, 21 Cobus Reinach, 22 Pat Lambie, 23 JP Pietersen

Glad Vermeulen is available. Also glad Bismarck gets the nod to start. A good bench, most of which I think are better or at least in better form than some of the starters. Hope we don't let slip too much before bringing in the cavalry.

Willem Alberts, with Mohoje starting, might be more missed than FdP at this stage and that is saying something! The biggest improvement needs to come from the tight 5 though.. those incumbents who have been on the average side IMO have the responsibility to show they deserve to have HM's trust or at least to re-earn the fan's trust.

 

[Jack Reacher]

I look at it this way, if you are top, then you can't go higher, so the only way to move is down. It's just a matter of time.

In a league type scoring system you can/should go higher - especially one that theoretically is never ending. The top team should take extra displacing if they've been top for years.
If the premier league scoring was neverending Man Utd would still be well clear even after one bad season because they are the best performing team of recent times, not just the immediate past which is what the Rugby scoring seems to pander to.
I hazard a guess but if England win all their games and NZ,SA, Aus slip up on a couple during the AI can they end the season No1? Now thats wrong.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Pretty handy looking Boks side! Good from a South African perspective to see both Vermeulen and Habana (not so good from a NZ perspective...). Personally I would have thought Burger would have warranted a start ahead of Mohoje. Bismark is back starting too, which I think this a good choice by South Africa, as I believe taking on the AB's physically is the best way to disrupt their game-plan.

Well they have put Vermeulen in at 8. But they will give him time until Friday, and if it looks like he's not 100% they will not play him. Then Schalk will replace him at 8 and Whiteley will come in on the bench

 

[nickdnz]

In a league type scoring system you can/should go higher - especially one that theoretically is never ending. The top team should take extra displacing if they've been top for years.
If the premier league scoring was neverending Man Utd would still be well clear even after one bad season because they are the best performing team of recent times, not just the immediate past which is what the Rugby scoring seems to pander to.
I hazard a guess but if England win all their games and NZ,SA, Aus slip up on a couple during the AI can they end the season No1? Now thats wrong.

What are you talking about?

It's not like you win the Premier League by winning more games over the course of history than the last club..

Every time the All Blacks beat an opponent they get a small number of points (smaller because every win the All Blacks have ultimately lowers the points of the opposition). It seems you believe that the All Blacks should just continue to stockpile points so it's harder for them to lose their rankings. What you don't seem to get is that it's only a measure of current form. So for example the All Blacks could win 50 matches in a row, and then lose three matches in a row. The rankings would indicate the form of the team to make a prediction based up on the next match they play. It's not a system of owing a team some kind of standing, it's a system of measuring the relative form of international teams.

If New Zealand, South Africa and New Zealand lose all their games in the EOYT, and England win all of theirs and went up to #1 (which I'm not sure would be the case, but likely), then would it not make sense that England is statistically more likely to win the next match than New Zealand, South Africa and Australia who just lost 4 in a row.

Like others have mentioned, the problem that occurs with the rankings is that not all teams play each other to get an even opportunity at points. Argentina have a harder time getting past Japan for example, because Japan play in the Pacific Nations Cup while Argentina have to beat New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. However since a system of approximating performance against teams that don't play eachother is very difficult outside of World Cup years, it does do a reasonably accurate job (not helped that Argentina effectively throw away points they could get in June series by not being able to field their best players - who are effectively owned by French teams - but that's another story).

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

In a league type scoring system you can/should go higher - especially one that theoretically is never ending. The top team should take extra displacing if they've been top for years.
If the premier league scoring was neverending Man Utd would still be well clear even after one bad season because they are the best performing team of recent times, not just the immediate past which is what the Rugby scoring seems to pander to.
I hazard a guess but if England win all their games and NZ,SA, Aus slip up on a couple during the AI can they end the season No1? Now thats wrong.

If we look at it ITO 'all time' (since the first rugby union tests have been played) rather than current (and I'd argue relevant) like that then SA's dominance pre-professionalism and pre-isolation should see us at no.1 still as we've been no.1 for longer even if NZ has been no.1 in more games if you allow for the fact that the bulk of games have been played pretty recently in a historical context. If that is what you are moving towards then i am all for it!!! ;P

 

[nickdnz]

If we look at it ITO 'all time' (since the first rugby union tests have been played) rather than current (and I'd argue relevant) like that then SA's dominance pre-professionalism and pre-isolation should see us at no.1 still as we've been no.1 for longer even if NZ has been no.1 in more games if you allow for the fact that the bulk of games have been played pretty recently in a historical context. If that is what you are moving towards then i am all for it!!! ;P

Well prior to professionalism it was 18-21 in favor of the Springboks in a head to head. It's generally accepted that the non-neutral referees certainly played a factor...

As for being #1, the rankings existed in 2003. Prior to that there was no #1 - although it's generally accepted that New Zealand tended to tour better than South Africa .

 

[TRF_heineken]

Ok stop the dick swinging contest and get back on topic!

Wayne Barnes is the ref for this game, and good news, the match is sold out!!

 

[nickdnz]

Ok stop the dick swinging contest and get back on topic!

Wayne Barnes is the ref for this game, and good news, the match is sold out!!

I couldn't swing it if I wanted to, it just kind of drags along the ground behind me. It looks like I'm constantly being followed by some kind of seal..

Anyway, Wayne Barnes. What every kiwi likes to hear..

 

[TRF_heineken]

I couldn't swing it if I wanted to, it just kind of drags along the ground behind me. It looks like I'm constantly being followed by some kind of seal..

Anyway, Wayne Barnes. What every kiwi likes to hear..

Reminds me of a Leon Schuster Joke: "Dit gaan nie oor die uithaal en wys nie, dit gaan oor die oprol en terug sit!!" - It's not about whipping it out and showing it, it's about rolling it up and putting it back...

Thought the appoinment of Barnes might grind your gears.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Well, it's not as if neutral referees havn't been a factor..

As for the rankings not existing prior to 2003 that is totally beside the point as we are talking about changing things up here.

Barnes, hey. He sure is... erm.. neutral.