Melhor Time
Bench Player
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 801
Haha we shall indeed. Don't get me wrong I have a soft spot for the Argies but I think your still a few years away from this
A friendly suggestion... be humble.
All the talk of Argentina not defeating South Africa or New Zealand matters little. In the professional era all teams that have faced Argentina regularly have lost. None of the Tri Nations sides have done so. Australia vs Argentina has not happened in nine years. New Zealand vs Argentina, aside from the World Cup, has not happened in six years. Argentina vs South Africa is the only post RWC 2007 fixture, a one-off match played when Argentina could not get all its players released.
Lets actually look at it in an objetive way to try to appreciate why Los Pumas have been able to
defeat France so many times despite not beating New Zealand or South Africa at the same time.
The first reason is, as I have made clear, a lack of matches. In the professional era Australia has visited Argentina twice. The Wallabies have been to Italy much more frequently during the same period. Curiously, of the two times in Argentina one was a loss in 1997 with a star-studded team lead by John Eales being knocked over by an predominantly amateur side. South Africa came close to losing in Buenos Aires in 2000 and were pushed far again in 2005 and had to stage a secondhalf come back. In 2003, South Africa won by a single point in Port Elizabeth vs Argentina after Louis Koen landed a last minute victory. It gave South Africa a 26-25 win. New Zealand scored an injury time try to defeat Los Pumas in 2001. A try that should not have been as Contepomi failed to find touch from his ingoal. The other All Blacks visit saw New Zealand hang on to win with Argentina banging away on the tryline in the final two minutes. A try was nearly scored and would have been a Pumas win.
This is speculation and one can, indeed, say Argentina didn´t win. There is no denying this. But using the lack of wins to judge the performances and abilities is not objective. Argentina lost in 2005 vs Samoa. It was a test. Samoans were saying it proves Samoa is better than Argentina. The match was played in December - no professional players were released. I repeat, no professionals. Therefore suggesting Samoa were better in 2005 was hardly a strong argument. Argentina defeated Ireland twice in June 2007 and the press spoke of Argentina taking this into their vital World Cup match in Paris as meaning Los Pumas were favorites. The tests occured before the French season had ended. Many of the team that would play vs Ireland in the World up match missed the June tests, inc the entire frontrow and the 9-10 combination. i.e. AgustÃn Pichot, Juan MartÃn Hernández, Rodrigo Roncero, Lucas Borges, Mario Ledesma, Gonzalo Longo and MartÃn Scelzo. They were all playing for Stade Français or Clermont in the 2007 Final. The lesson in all of this is that results of the past are useful indicators but not hard evidence for the future. Afterall Ireland took an understrength side to Argentina for the 2007 tour.
Incidently, the South American XV that defeated South Africa was only called Jaguares and only had players from outside of Argentina so that the tour could be justified during the anti-apartheid era of what was the 1980´s. The players from Chile, etc were included ahead of better Argentine players. Suggesting that the match does not count because not all the players were from Argentina ignores why the match took place at all. Argentina does not claim to have defeated South Africa but anybody who thinks the Hugo Porta led effort is irrelevent is choosing to believe something rather than checking the facts.
Last edited:
