[RWC 2023 Final] New Zealand v South Africa 28/10/23 20:00 BST

[retired9]

First off, congratualtions to the Bokke on a hard fought win and tournament - three 1 point games in a row must be a record. A big team performance and some standout individual efforts really pushed you over the line.

For the All Blacks that must have been a tough one to swallow, 2 missed kicks which would have put the pressure on SA to score could have changed the game. Credit to them for still being in it with over 40mins at 14men.

The refereeing from the highlights I've seen didn't appear too bad in the end in terms of overall calls, what I noticed was there seemed to be decision/reverse decision then sometimes change again. Maybe it was one of those games that wasn't particularly easy to referee, play was a bit disjointed, mistakes etc piling up.

I wasn't at any of the matches this tournament, last time was 2015. I would say it seemed a good atmosphere while France were still in it, home fans getting behind the underdogs etc. The amount of booing pre kick-off was not a great look for the sport, I hope it's not repeated at another Cup. After that things just died off a bit, the anthems being recorded - I understand why they did it but it feels a bit sterile IMO. Not sure it is something to carry forward. Some of the caerma work was also very annoying, the French do this in the 6N as well, trying to get a big arty shot out side - occasionally it works but doing it in open play is frustrating.

Australia will be a different type of host, as someone else said I hope they use this 4 years to field a decent team who can at least see QF/SF's.

 

[Ospervat]

We are quite used to it. 95 we poisoned the other team. 07 we just coasted because NZ and Aus didn't win. 2019, easiest route to the final ever. 2023 the refs cheated and we cheated. If it isn't boring rugby, or against the spirit of the game or manipulating laws and refs it would be something else. Nothing new to us having the rest of the world tell us how undeserving we are each time we win it. It just makes us celebrate even harder. That's just how we are.

Heard about the New Zealand All Blacks brassiere?

It's got all the support but no cup.

 

[Ospervat]

RWC 23
Top 6 teams vs top 6 teams results.

England played 1 / won 0
Scotland played 2 / Won 0
France played 2 / won 1
Ireland played 3 / won 2
NZ played 3 / won 2
SA played 5 / won 4

Deserved world champions?

 

[BrokenWing]

The way we were booed by the French crowd was something else.

In some ways this is a mark of respect from The French.

 

[Jer1cho]

I just read a Stat that Franco Mostert made 49/49 tackles in 3 knockout games. He is, undoubtably, the most underrated player, of all time. He isn't a runner, or scorer. But he is an absolute wall, with guts to spare. Warrior.

On the WR awards, can't moan. Agree on coach. Likeable, and built a machine of a team. 17 wins on the trot? This supposedly greatest Bok team is not even close to a run like that. POTY was close with Eben, but frankly, Ardie should have won years ago, and he was a demon this year. No gripes. Dream team also fine. Malherbe unlucky. Players are brilliant in that team though, individually. A team of 15 (23), well, that's about guts grit and a sprinkle of talent. Our players fill out those spots just fine.

23>15 with subs.

 

[SteveAustin794582]

There's a tiny bit of post in your resentment. You not enjoying the outcome and the WC being bad are two quite different things.

The World Cup was quite good. Saying it was the worst ever just exposes your anger. You lost, let it go.
Other than Arg vs NZ, which was a deplorable event, all the knockout games ranged from good to outstanding. Every single one of them.

There he is! I was wondering when you would show up to complain.

You don't understand the euphoria? Maybe that's because you never saw your team win it. They won the World Cup, and will be reigning champions for 8 years in a row. A feat only achieved by one other country. They are euphoric because at the end of the tournament, they are the ones who won it.

It doesn't matter how you win. Only that you do.

I rather win ugly games than lose beautiful ones.

Are you going to be this salty for the next 4 years? Because if you do, I might stick around to watch

You won, but to be euphoric about beating 14 men and having so much help from the reffing team is what confuses a lot of spectators. We normally attribute a high level of understanding of the game to south African supporters, so it's very odd that they feel euphoria rather than relief for winning with such an average team.
You still got the cup, it's just the euphoria which is proving to discount the world's prior assumption that the saffas know the difference between being the best and being unbelievably lucky.
Don't conflate the two.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

You won, but to be euphoric about beating 14 men and having so much help from the reffing team is what confuses a lot of spectators. We normally attribute a high level of understanding of the game to south African supporters, so it's very odd that they feel euphoria rather than relief for winning with such an average team.
You still got the cup, it's just the euphoria which is proving to discount the world's prior assumption that the saffas know the difference between being the best and being unbelievably lucky.
Don't conflate the two.

i dont want to encourage the SA african fans...but i get it

The RWC isn't just the last game, so its not just beating a team with only 14 players or getting the rub of the green with the ref....its the whole comp, this game is just the end of a long road, beating 5 of the top 6 teams over the course of the comp is impressive

I would be celebrating if we'd won and the fact we'd had a less taxing route wouldn't dampen things for me

 

[SteveAustin794582]

i dont want to encourage the SA african fans...but i get it

The RWC isn't just the last game, so its not just beating a team with only 14 players or getting the rub of the green with the ref....its the whole comp, this game is just the end of a long road, beating 5 of the top 6 teams over the course of the comp is impressive

I would be celebrating if we'd won and the fact we'd had a less taxing route wouldn't dampen things for me

I disagree, the saffas are only claiming England were a top quality team after struggling to beat them. Prior to the game all the talk was that England shouldn't even bother turning up. Revisionism is the word here I believe.
And conversely, why are we disparaging argentina? They lost to England by one kick, and had beaten nz twice in the last two years, what kind of convenient revisionism concludes that argie are an easy beat just because nz was so good that we put 40+ points on them?

NZ and SA both played against France and Ireland, so again, how was it harder for them than nz?

I think you've accepted the unjustified SA claims far to easily and without a critical eye.

Finally SA played Scotland who are ranked higher than Italy by a few places, but again, SA squeaked past by 7 points with their full strength team, while nz annihilated Italy with just our reserves. And this was an Italy that came into the game with good confidence and expectations. We destroyed them so bad that rugby was put back in Italy by five years.

And somehow again the revisionist SAs conflate exceptional NZ performances with sub par opposition, while their butchered efforts to beat misfiring teams and short staffed teams are viewed as proof of their greatness.

It's these delusions that make the SAs a special lot.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I disagree, the saffas are only claiming England were a top quality team after struggling to beat them. Prior to the game all the talk was that England shouldn't even bother turning up. Revisionism is the word here I believe.
And conversely, why are we disparaging argentina? They lost to England by one kick, and had beaten nz twice in the last two years, what kind of convenient revisionism concludes that argie are an easy beat just because nz was so good that we put 40+ points on them?

NZ and SA both played against France and Ireland, so again, how was it harder for them than nz?

I think you've accepted the unjustified SA claims far to easily and without a critical eye.

Finally SA played Scotland who are ranked higher than Italy by a few places, but again, SA squeaked past by 7 points with their full strength team, while nz annihilated Italy with just our reserves. And this was an Italy that came into the game with good confidence and expectations. We destroyed them so bad that rugby was put back in Italy by five years.

And somehow again the revisionist SAs conflate exceptional NZ performances with sub par opposition, while their butchered efforts to beat misfiring teams and short staffed teams are viewed as proof of their greatness.

It's these delusions that make the SAs a special lot.

....i didn't actually mention Argentina, i was more thinking the run of namibia/uruguay/Italy as not being as much of a test as we might have wanted before the play off spots...if you were a bit more familiar with the forum and its posters you'd know i was very worried about Argentina and the challenge they might pose

jumping to that conclusion possibly says more about your own feeling towards argentina

look...you do what you need to do to feel better...by and large your stance is the minority...so it might be an interesting discussion on who is actually delusional

 

[SteveAustin794582]

P.s. That Scottish team that the saffas are making out to be "top 5" got annihilated by Ireland in a game that the Scottish targeted with everything they had. They shipped 36 points in 45 minutes, and had 0 on their side of the scoreboard.
If Ireland hadn't rolled out the reserves after 45 minutes it would have been a 50+ hiding.

But again, according to the saffas, that's a top 5 team who easily could have gone all the way to the trophy.

 

[SteveAustin794582]

....i didn't actually mention Argentina, i was more thinking the run of namibia/uruguay/Italy as not being as much of a test as we might have wanted before the play off spots...if you were a bit more familiar with the forum and its posters you'd know i was very worried about Argentina and the challenge they might pose

jumping to that conclusion possibly says more about your own feeling towards argentina

look...you do what you need to do to feel better...by and large your stance is the minority...so it might be an interesting discussion on who is actually

Seriously? I don't attack you at all, and you come out with ad hominem?

You and I both respected argentina because of their record, the only people saying it "was" easy are those saffas claiming they had the harder road. I guess you misinterpreted that, but no big deal.

Uruguay had a sensational world cup, pushing France very close. Samoa and Tonga can't say that they were any markedly better. I will concede that Namibia weren't up to much, but it's a helluva stretch to say that made the route to the final massively easier for NZ.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Seriously? I don't attack you at all, and you come out with ad hominem?

You and I both respected argentina because of their record, the only people saying it "was" easy are those saffas claiming they had the harder road. I guess you misinterpreted that, but no big deal.

Uruguay had a sensational world cup, pushing France very close. Samoa and Tonga can't say that they were any markedly better. I will concede that Namibia weren't up to much, but it's a helluva stretch to say that made the route to the final massively easier for NZ.

you obviously want to scream at the sky and want every to feel and think exactly as you do....carry on, i shouldn't have engaged

i assume you'll disappear shortly and come back for the next world cup, we can chat then

 

[SteveAustin794582]

you obviously want to scream at the sky and want every to feel and think exactly as you do....carry on, i shouldn't have engaged

i assume you'll disappear shortly and come back for the next world cup, we can chat then

All my points were clearly made, no foul language was used, and no screaming was done.
maybe I could have used the word "wrong" rather than the more emotive "delusional", but if that is too much for the forum then yes, next world cup is probably when I'll visit again.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

All my points were clearly made, no foul language was used, and no screaming was done.
maybe I could have used the word "wrong" rather than the more emotive "delusional", but if that is too much for the forum then yes, next world cup is probably when I'll visit again.

screaming at the sky is a saying for those that dont want a conversation, just want to convince everyone else they are right and everyone else is wrong

....oh look....you're saying everyone else is wrong

im sure we all look forward to it.....

 

[BrokenWing]

I disagree, the saffas are only claiming England were a top quality team after struggling to beat them. Prior to the game all the talk was that England shouldn't even bother turning up. Revisionism is the word here I believe.
And conversely, why are we disparaging argentina? They lost to England by one kick, and had beaten nz twice in the last two years, what kind of convenient revisionism concludes that argie are an easy beat just because nz was so good that we put 40+ points on them?

NZ and SA both played against France and Ireland, so again, how was it harder for them than nz?

I think you've accepted the unjustified SA claims far to easily and without a critical eye.

Finally SA played Scotland who are ranked higher than Italy by a few places, but again, SA squeaked past by 7 points with their full strength team, while nz annihilated Italy with just our reserves. And this was an Italy that came into the game with good confidence and expectations. We destroyed them so bad that rugby was put back in Italy by five years.

And somehow again the revisionist SAs conflate exceptional NZ performances with sub par opposition, while their butchered efforts to beat misfiring teams and short staffed teams are viewed as proof of their greatness.

It's these delusions that make the SAs a special lot.

All I can say is that it's a good job SA are so crap then because the final would have been embarrassing for NZ if they were good…

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I just read a Stat that Franco Mostert made 49/49 tackles in 3 knockout games. He is, undoubtably, the most underrated player, of all time. He isn't a runner, or scorer. But he is an absolute wall, with guts to spare. Warrior.

On the WR awards, can't moan. Agree on coach. Likeable, and built a machine of a team. 17 wins on the trot? This supposedly greatest Bok team is not even close to a run like that. POTY was close with Eben, but frankly, Ardie should have won years ago, and he was a demon this year. No gripes. Dream team also fine. Malherbe unlucky. Players are brilliant in that team though, individually. A team of 15 (23), well, that's about guts grit and a sprinkle of talent. Our players fill out those spots just fine.

23>15 with subs.

My all-time underrated player is Juan Smith, but I got mad respect for Sous.

Also think the WR dream team is fine. Mock outcry is media fabricated IMO. Could they have added Malherbe and PSdT. Sure but the margins are damn fine. Levani Botia. There are just so many excellent players if you look at a broader set of teams as well. For SA, its our depth that is our strength.

And any one of those 4 nominated players would be worthy. Mine would be Aki but Savea is a fair shout. I actually think this is the first year where the nominations are spot on at least and its splitting hairs to split those 4.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

You won, but to be euphoric about beating 14 men and having so much help from the reffing team is what confuses a lot of spectators. We normally attribute a high level of understanding of the game to south African supporters, so it's very odd that they feel euphoria rather than relief for winning with such an average team.
You still got the cup, it's just the euphoria which is proving to discount the world's prior assumption that the saffas know the difference between being the best and being unbelievably lucky.
Don't conflate the two.

I dont think you get it. I really don't. Let me break it down for you.
First, i am not South African nor support South Africa.
Second, and this is the relevant part, if i had to choose between

a) comfortably dominating any and all opponents and winning every game by +30 points

and

b) winning every game by the minimum margin, by a whisker, in the last minute

i d choose b) 10 times out of 10. It's a no-brainer imo. What RSA accomplished is phenomenal not just in terms of the end result (a victory) but in how they achieved it.

- They came second in their group
- Won their 1/4s game by 1 point
- Won their 1/2s game by 1 point
- Won the final by 1 point
- Did so facing every single potential candidate in the process. They did not manage to dodge a single one of them.

That screams tension, nail-biting games, attrition... and efficiency! They couldnt have given up a single point, not one, in their knockout games. In terms of managing resources that is perfection. Everything, every-bloody-goddam-thing they did mattered in order to win. They were running on fumes but they reached the goal. That is just brilliant. It's fantastic. It is gorgeous.

If i had to write a script about my team winning the World Cup it'd be pretty close to what RSA did.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

You won, but to be euphoric about beating 14 men and having so much help from the reffing team is what confuses a lot of spectators. We normally attribute a high level of understanding of the game to south African supporters, so it's very odd that they feel euphoria rather than relief for winning with such an average team.
You still got the cup, it's just the euphoria which is proving to discount the world's prior assumption that the saffas know the difference between being the best and being unbelievably lucky.
Don't conflate the two.

The RWC is more than just the final 80 minutes. It's the culmination of 4 years of hard work, dedication and preparation. And in a tournament where South Africa was in the toughest RWC pool ever (three teams in the top-5) and playing literally every other country in the top-6 of World Rugby rankings, they still came out on top after losing their superstar outside center (Am), superstar hooker (Marx), backup hooker in the final (Mbonambi) and only got their no 1 fly-half back halfway through the tournament. Despite all that, they still prevailed. They still came out on top, to become the first country to win it 4 times. And this coming after a Lions Series win 2 years ago, and the previous RWC win 4 years ago. Only the 2nd team to successfully defend their world cup.

Yet all I see from others is how lucky they were, and the refs suck, and rugby sucks, and Springboks are boring, they don't deserve it because it was all close games bla bla bla.

Refs? How about the Barrett try coming off a knock on by Tele'a? Kolisi getting penalised against England when it was a legal turnover? The ball being available in the maul against Ireland and O'Keefe blowing the whistle? If you are goint to nitpick every little thing, you can argue the refs are favouring literally any team.

Boring? How about beating the hosts in the quarters by scoring 4 tries? How is that boring? The final also wasn't boring. But I guess if there aren't 17 tries in a game, it's considered boring. Maybe rugby isn't the problem. Maybe it's the unrealistic expectations from fans.

Close games don't make you a deserved champion you say? Weird how nobody complained about New Zealand beating South Africa by only 2 points in 2015 or France by only 1 point in 2011. To be clear: I rather win a game by 1 point than coast to a 30-point victory. Those games are boring. I don't give a flying **** about a 55-10 win because it's like watching a highlight reel. There's no tension, no passion, no stakes. THAT is boring. If anything, winning close games makes it a more earned victory than a bunch of blowout victories.

I guess it's just society nowadays. Everything has to be downplayed, analysed to death just so we have something to complain about. The final could have been France-Ireland with a 58-52 score and there would still be complaints.

Why are South African euphoric? Because they won what matters most. For a record 4th time. That's why.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

P.s. That Scottish team that the saffas are making out to be "top 5" got annihilated by Ireland in a game that the Scottish targeted with everything they had. They shipped 36 points in 45 minutes, and had 0 on their side of the scoreboard.
If Ireland hadn't rolled out the reserves after 45 minutes it would have been a 50+ hiding.

But again, according to the saffas, that's a top 5 team who easily could have gone all the way to the trophy.

*According to World Rugby, Scotland was a top-5 team. Their rankings aren't just made up. Those rankings are based on actual results.

New Zealand lost 35-7 at Twickenham. I guess they suck too, for a top-3 team in the world.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

There is a skill in winning coin flip games. South Africa constantly putting themselves in games and finding a way to win is what great teams do. Sometimes you need to scrap close wins when you are having a bad day.