Split: SavageLes protests that he's not a South African (but fails miserably)

[SavageLez]

Brilliant idea, can't agree with you more!

I think the common opinion around people I talk to is that NZ, SA and AUS are better than the NH teams, save for France (depending on which team turns up). Scotland are improving, and were good to watch in the 6N, England are devoid of ideas, Wales and Ireland seem equal or better than England.
And I think those are the main-est teams. Samoa and Argentina and the like could probably be ranked up there.

I think a rough number, and then a variable to fluctuate results. So, say France are 85. They often have awful games, and then swing to world-class the next week. So there should be something that signifies that, so you might be playing a 90+ France, or a 70~ France.

And the fairest way of doing it might be to have an average of the players on the team, much like Fifa's star ratings change depending on the players you have in your squad. (I think Fifa takes into account the whole team, including reserves too)

 

[Teh Mite]

South Africa didn't win the Premiership either - Leicester beat them in the final.


Anyway, a fair comparrison between SA and NZ is Wales, The Boks scrape a win at the Millenium while New Zealand obliterate them in the house of Pain. Home advantage is normally worth only 7 points.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

No-one, Samoa won the IRB Sevens World Championship. Ha

and Wales have got the World Cup 7s
and either Australia or New Zealand are going to have the JWC soon

 

[SelimNiai]

And the US are reigning Olympic rugby champions, lets not forget that...

 

[SavageLez]

South Africa didn't win the Premiership either - Leicester beat them in the final.


Anyway, a fair comparrison between SA and NZ is Wales, The Boks scrape a win at the Millenium while New Zealand obliterate them in the house of Pain. Home advantage is normally worth only 7 points.

Bullit: It shows you don't know much about the game. The SA coach rested 3/4 of the normal team players because the Bulls and the Stormers played eachother in the Super 14 final. The coach used ex SA players currently playing in England. Wake up!!!

and..... SA still won! That say's a lot about SH rugby.

Have a look at this site:
http://www.slackers.co.za/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=15182
It shows that SA currently hold all trophies available to the Springboks.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Bullit: It shows you don't know much about the game. The SA coach rested 3/4 of the normal team players because the Bulls and the Stormers played eachother in the Super 14 final. The coach used ex SA players currently playing in England. Wake up!!!

and..... SA still won! That say's a lot about SH rugby.

Have a look at this site:
http://www.slackers.co.za/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=15182
It shows that SA currently hold all trophies available to the Springboks.

As soon as i clicked the link i saw the World Cup 7s trophy...which is currently in Welsh possession...

 

[Teh Mite]

Bullit: It shows you don't know much about the game..

:lol:

Resorting to insults already? Is your argument really that **** weak?

Bless.

I suggest you stop moving the goalpoasts every time an error is pointed out in your reasoning, you will be cut down very fast.

And without wishing to sound arrogant or big headded, I know more about the sport then most people. Full stop.

Try learning about the forum and gathering some knowledge about the members before hurling insults about. You wont make many friends around here with that attitude.

 

[Feicarsinn]

How many players were New Zealand against Wales? Plenty, that's how many. It was a severely weakened Wales team.

 

[SavageLez]

To HB Studios and TRF:

Go to the following website - http://www.slackers.co.za/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=15182

This site will prove who the CURRENT leading Test nation is. South Africa hold all 15 man rugby trophies available to them. No other country in the world has ever done this feat before.

The Web Ellis "Rugby World Cup"
Nelson Mandela Plate
Freedom Cup
The British & Irish Lions Series Trophy
Super 14 Trophy

The only reason SA don't have the Six Nations cup is because they don't play in it!

LOL

 

[SavageLez]

:lol:

Resorting to insults already? Is your argument really that **** weak?

Bless.

I suggest you stop moving the goalpoasts every time an error is pointed out in your reasoning, you will be cut down very fast.

And without wishing to sound arrogant or big headded, I know more about the sport then most people. Full stop.

Try learning about the forum and gathering some knowledge about the members before hurling insults about. You wont make many friends around here with that attitude.

Then why make such a stupid comparison in matches if you know so much Mr. Bullitt. If you knew SA were resting players then obviously the the game would be a lot closer. Had the main players all played SA would have routed them. As mentioned earlier the Welsh were travelling (away game) and they have injuries for the NZ game. A real no brainer of a comparison. Come on.. thought you had a great knowledge of the game!!!

 

[SavageLez]

How many players were New Zealand against Wales? Plenty, that's how many. It was a severely weakened Wales team.

I agree with you and heNce NZ walked all over Wales. Wales are missing HOOK, SHANE WILLIAM, ANDY POWELL AND TOM SHANKLIN!
It only takes 1 or 2 top players to effect the team performance. Especially when they are gamebreakers like Williams! Hook also showed some great form against SA.

 

[SelimNiai]

I agree with you and heNce NZ walked all over Wales. Wales are missing HOOK, SHANE WILLIAM, ANDY POWELL AND TOM SHANKLIN!
It only takes 1 or 2 top players to effect the team performance. Especially when they are gamebreakers like Williams! Hook also showed some great form against SA.

I'd hardly call Shanklin, who has barely played for the Blues, let alone Wales in the last season, a miss. They didn't walk all over us, they pulled away in the last 30 mins, but for an hour we competed well with them.

 

[Teh Mite]

Then why make such a stupid comparison in matches if you know so much Mr. Bullitt. If you knew SA were resting players then obviously the the game would be a lot closer. Had the main players all played SA would have routed them. As mentioned earlier the Welsh were travelling (away game) and they have injuries for the NZ game. A real no brainer of a comparison. Come on.. thought you had a great knowledge of the game!!!

Double standards aswell? Blimey, what a pathetic case you're stating.

It was a full test match. If the backup squad is so **** they can't perform anywhere near to the standard of the first XV, perhaps it's a sign the team isn't nearly so strong as you believe. Or would you rather discredit those players because they didn't deservde a cap?

Or does that only count when it not South Africa?

 

[SavageLez]

Double standards aswell? Blimey, what a pathetic case you're stating.

It was a full test match. If the backup squad is so **** they can't perform anywhere near to the standard of the first XV, perhaps it's a sign the team isn't nearly so strong as you believe. Or would you rather discredit those players because they didn't deservde a cap?

Or does that only count when it not South Africa?

That is my point, SA are that good that they beat Wales away from home without their core players (B Team).
What has New Zealand WON in the last 2 years to be rated above South Africa.
Have they beaten SA in the last year, have they won the Tri Nations, Super 14, have they won the world cup.
NO!!!!!

So, SA are therefore CURRENTLY better! It is a no brainer BULLIT!

If you can argue that away go for it, but give me some substance not opinion and your "great knowledge"!

 

[Feicarsinn]

That is my point, SA are that good that they beat Wales away from home without their core players (B Team).
What has New Zealand WON in the last 2 years to be rated above South Africa.
Have they beaten SA in the last year, have they won the Tri Nations, Super 14, have they won the world cup.
NO!!!!!

So, SA are therfore CURRENTLY better! It is a no brainer BULLIT!

If you can argue that away go for it, but give me some substance not opinion and your "great knowledge"!

Okay, I'm not going to go near the grammatical errors in that post. The point is, you're failing to grasp the arguements against you and contradicting yourself. You've said South Africa beat a Wales while putting out a team missing quite a few regulars. This is true, however so did New Zealand, by a helluva lot more too. So please stop using the arguement "BOKKE B TEAM BEAT WALES!!!!!!! WE'RE AWESOME!!!!! BULLTT HAS NO RUGBY KNOWLEDGE!!!!." It makes you sound lke a muppet.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

This is true, however so did Brazil, by a helluva lot more too.

Watching the football by any chance?

 

[Feicarsinn]

Watching the football by any chance?

Humbug.

 

[Teh Mite]

CURRENTLY, South AFRICA have won NOTHING. (Am I PUTTING the capital WORDS in the RIGHT place?)

They won the Tri-Nations last year (by that logic, Ireland are better then france)
They won the World Cup 3 years ago (by that logic, England are still better then New Zealand)
In their last match, they were flattered by scoreline to Italy in South Africa. (You will no doubt reply to me "oh, well they beat france" and conveniently forget your own rules about missing players).

Don't use half facts and ******** spin to try and make a point. A team is only as good as their last game and this year, the Springboks have won **** all.

And do you know what? This year they're not going to win **** all either.

 

[SavageLez]

CURRENTLY, South AFRICA have won NOTHING. (Am I PUTTING the capital WORDS in the RIGHT place?)

They won the Tri-Nations last year (by that logic, Ireland are better then france)
They won the World Cup 3 years ago (by that logic, England are still better then New Zealand)
In their last match, they were flattered by scoreline to Italy in South Africa. (You will no doubt reply to me "oh, well they beat france" and conveniently forget your own rules about missing players).

Don't use half facts and ******** spin to try and make a point. A team is only as good as their last game and this year, the Springboks have won **** all.

You sound like a bitter and twisted man Bullit.
You can't change facts and you can't be a fortune teller and say SA are going to win nothing.
The facts are that they have won all these matches are currently the holders of all those trophies mentioned. Whoever you support, they do not have them.

You conveniantly leave out the main argument:

SA are currently stronger than New Zealand, currently! Not in a months time, now. As mentioned SA have beaten them 4 out of 6 times in the last 2 years.
This whole argument started with NZ being rated above SA but SA have proved in the last 2 years to be stronger and the records speak for themselves.
SA have even dominated the Super 14 with Bulls & Stormers (2 teams in the final 2010) and Bulls (SA) have won the S14 3 out of 4 times in the last 4 years.
Hence SA should be rated above NZ. I dont care what you assume is going to happen in the future.We are talking about now.
As I mentioned earlier, if NZ rout SA during the course of the development of the game (Rugby 2012). That is a real possibility because these 2 teams are of high quality and are very competitive, then I will be the first to say that SA must be rated lower.

This is currently not the case and SA have proved this over the last 2 years againt the NZ. So all I am saying is:

SA must currently be rated above NZ!!

 

[SavageLez]

I would give the Southern Hemisphere clubs the following ratings:

Bulls - 89
Stormers - 87
Waratahs - 85
Crusaders - 84
Reds - 83
Brumbies - 82
Blues - 82
Hurricanes - 82
Sharks - 80
Cheetahs - 78
Chiefs - 78
Highlanders - 76
Force - 76
Lions - 55

The Springboks are made up predominantly from the Bulls and Stormers teams. Bulls have won the Super 14, 3 out of the last 4 years. Two SA sides were both in the 2010 Super 14 final. In fact they led the Super14 log for most of the tournament.