Ospervat
Bench Player
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2015
- Messages
- 639
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Good read. I think this really sums up the difference and why NZ didn't win.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.
Rugby World Cup final confirms surprising stats trend for knockout losers
With the biggest game of rugby done and dusted, Planet Rugby takes a closer look at the stats behind the match, revealing an interesting trend.
www.planetrugby.com