Tri Nations: Springboks - All Blacks @ Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium (20-8-2011, 15:05)

[nickdnz]

It's interesting the style of rugby arguments. Ignoring some of the anger in this thread (plenty by me, and many by people who like the "nah nah nah, I can't hear you approach") I do think it's an interesting point regarding style of plays. My thoughts are this -

From what I've seen from the development of rugby in South Africa at youth level, there is and has always been a very big emphasis on size. Loose forwards are often judged on just how big they are and how hard they run, that some of the more subtle skills such as link play, fetching and handling prowess. As someone myself who is around 112kg at the moment and loves playing #8, I can totally sympathize with this approach. However it's not an approach that New Zealanders have been able to afford, simply because any white looseforward in the All Blacks has probably come up against a very, very big Polynesian loose forward who was 10-20kgs heavier at age grade level, so in order to be competitive, loosefowards often have to be very fast, skillful and fit. If you look at the looseforwards in New Zealand who play 7's this is just how fit they have to be.

I think this really effects the backs, and I don't buy that South Africa doesn't have the potential to have a lathel back three. Heck, there's a South African with no legs running quicker than any New Zealander ever has. It's all about choosing to play to a style, and there is no doubt that South Africa's approach of big forwards and lots of kicks does work. With that in mind, you have players like Gio Aplon who would probably make the All Blacks back three, being left out because having a creative attacker who gets isolated because of a slow forward pack, is not beneficial. Either way, I can't see a new approach being adopted by the Boks in the next World Cup, and if they win it, probably ever.

 

[Sparty]

Im dead serious

Stormer your actually mistaken - but you won't admit it so i won't bother....

Show me where the coach whined after the last world cup - i remember him just saying "We can't blame the referee, these things happen" etc .... where do you get this stuff - do you just make it up and think if you say
it with as much conviction as you can that it will come true.

As for 95 no-one denies that the AB's had food poisoning - and the team were this close to not even playing because of it ....
They kept it quiet and even after losing the game didn't mention the extent of the poisoning to any media locally or internationally.

It wasn't until the extent of the poisoning became clear that comments were made and if i remember right a Saffar private investigator was hired by Laurie Mains to find out how it happened and blamed on a mysterious waitress named Suzie.

Most of us just think they got food poisoning - whether intentionally or not it happened,,,, no-ones crying about it....

It really wasn't huge news until Rory Steyn, who was in charge of the AB's security wrote a book about his time as chief of security for Mandela ...
in it he wrote about the poisoning "Steyn says in the book:We raced back to the hotel and when I got up to the doctor's room it looked like a battle zone - like a scene from a war movie. Players were lying all over the place and the doctor and physio were walking around injecting them. I was a police officer, I worked with facts. What my eyes told me that night was that the team had deliberately been poisoned.
He said the illness which had swept through the team had a major impact on the All Blacks' preparation for the final. I had to endure accusations of complicity in this, from New Zealand officials, and I was very angry that this was allowed to happen in my country - to people in my care. South African rugby fans remained skeptical of this theory and preferred to put it down to sour Kiwi grapes. To my fellow South Africans I want to say this: Stop all those cheap jokes about Suzie, the food poisoning and whingeing Kiwis. It happened. There is no doubt that the All Blacks were poisoned two days before the final."


Anyway it is what it is ... and



When you gotta look back 15 years to find a whinge your reaching HARD! haha

Should i go back and try and find Saffar coach whinge?
"[TABLE="class: storycontent"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][h=1]South Africa coach hints at refereeing 'conspiracy'[/h][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: storybody"]

New Zealand and South Africa played out a fiesty encounter in Wellington


South Africa coach Peter de Villiers has hinted there is a refereeing conspiracy against his players to boost rugby in New Zealand.[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

You whinging.......

 

[Sparty]

It's interesting the style of rugby arguments. Ignoring some of the anger in this thread (plenty by me, and many by people who like the "nah nah nah, I can't hear you approach") I do think it's an interesting point regarding style of plays. My thoughts are this -

From what I've seen from the development of rugby in South Africa at youth level, there is and has always been a very big emphasis on size. Loose forwards are often judged on just how big they are and how hard they run, that some of the more subtle skills such as link play, fetching and handling prowess. As someone myself who is around 112kg at the moment and loves playing #8, I can totally sympathize with this approach. However it's not an approach that New Zealanders have been able to afford, simply because any white looseforward in the All Blacks has probably come up against a very, very big Polynesian loose forward who was 10-20kgs heavier at age grade level, so in order to be competitive, loosefowards often have to be very fast, skillful and fit. If you look at the looseforwards in New Zealand who play 7's this is just how fit they have to be.

I think this really effects the backs, and I don't buy that South Africa doesn't have the potential to have a lathel back three. Heck, there's a South African with no legs running quicker than any New Zealander ever has. It's all about choosing to play to a style, and there is no doubt that South Africa's approach of big forwards and lots of kicks does work. With that in mind, you have players like Gio Aplon who would probably make the All Blacks back three, being left out because having a creative attacker who gets isolated because of a slow forward pack, is not beneficial. Either way, I can't see a new approach being adopted by the Boks in the next World Cup, and if they win it, probably ever.

We do have the players , we just need to get out of our forward defensive orientated thinking ALL the time. I have no problem with is playing a forward game based on Defense but not all the time. We need to be dynamic , add attack to our arsenal , imagine we can score tries and defend like we do. in 2009 when we played the Aussie away we scored in every possible way almost ie , first phase ball , kick and chase , quick tap , multiple phase ball etc etc. That is how I would prefer us to play , play what is happening in front of you. We need to be more intelligent in our attacking play.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

We do have the players , we just need to get out of our forward defensive orientated thinking ALL the time. I have no problem with is playing a forward game based on Defense but not all the time. We need to be dynamic , add attack to our arsenal , imagine we can score tries and defend like we do. in 2009 when we played the Aussie away we scored in every possible way almost ie , first phase ball , kick and chase , quick tap , multiple phase ball etc etc. That is how I would prefer us to play , play what is happening in front of you. We need to be more intelligent in our attacking play.

We'll get more dimension to our play post RWC I'm sure. If anything, the loner PdV has been at the helm (or is that the senior players?) the more lazy and disinterested we have looked (Springbok rugby and not SA rugby which i feel has in fact developed nicely under coaches such as Coetzee, Drotske, Plumtree and Mitchell). We have the talent, the only thing we need is some vision WRT coaching and the players buying into it. I actually don't think our defense is good at all ATM. At least 1on1 1st time tackling. We scrambled well in the last 2 games but the defense was bad to put us in those positions (needing to scramble) in the first place.

 

[UilamOsa]

Completely agree with you.

See, the thing is, we play to our strengths. All this talk about 'we kicked our way through the 2007 WC' is rubbish. We thrashed Samoa, with Habana scoring 4 tries, we annihilated Argentina as well as England. The final was very close, and the English didn't allow us to play as flashy as we could. Look what happened to New Zealand against France in that tournament. All they had to do was force a penalty, or at least try to kick a drop goal, but they didn't. We do what we are good at, and that's play to our strengths. New Zealand are by far and away the best defensive side on the planet. If we don't manage to get some go forward through phases, should we just keep trying? No. You take the points that are on offer, then try again.

I don't find any of our rugby boring, but it's no secret that we don't have powerful runners like New Zealand have. Players like Israel Dagg are very very rare, and have a keen eye for running rugby. We don't have the same kind of players, as we put emphasis on physicality and set phases. England are similar, and Wales are as well. It's just the way our guys come through from school level. Most of this constant whinging regarding the excitement of watching the game are from sour fans. We play a traditional game, and play to our strengths.

If we do manage to get to the semi-finals and play New Zealand, then I would rather have our game plan in taking points on offer, and fighting for territory, than try to please fans with flashy moves and running out of our own 22. If the game opens up, we have the ability to score the points, and that is far more important than trying to look the flashiest.

Like I said though, New Zealand and Australia have devastating runners. Players like Dagg,SBW,Beale,Ioane and Dan Carter know exactly who to run at, and when to kick. We play a forward orientated game, and apart from Spies, Habana and Aplon, we don't have any players that have the kind of flair and savvy that the Australasians have. We prefer big ball carriers, and try to get ourselves into a position to score points. If it bores you so much, and you can't stand the fact that we can beat any team in the world by taking the points that are on offer, then simply don't watch, and wait for the hilights reel so that you can **** off all you like to the 100m tries, not taking the end result into consideration of course.

Firstly, I admire that you believe that the Springboks played too their strengths. But if some of their strength isn't Fourie's offense, De Villiers panache & Habana's brillance then that is a sad state of affairs - it may be winning, but it's still sad.

I think it's terrible that you believe that you do not have players capable of being blockbusters in attack, all through the S15 they were tearing defenses to shreds. (I can't name them, but I did watch them some of these guys in the Cheetahs & Lions do pretty well) The Talent is THERE. Just look at the sevens.

I was in the UK at the last world cup, and with no disrespect to the finalists, I wanted either NZ or French or Pumas or even the Aussies to be at least one of the finalists due to the fact that on the Global stage at much as the game should be about winning - it should at the very least be about entertaining.

It's a personal preference - but at least it's one I can show to people unfamiliar with the game.

 

[DariusLovehall]

Good one Sparty - - So every post on here where someone answers a comment thrown directly at them is whinging is it - Your win the Troll Spoon!

 

[smartcooky]

Well one thing is for sure.

Rugby Union, as a game, does not need another tryless, kick-dominated borefest like the 2007 Final, not when the Rugby League World Cup Final a year later put our game to shame with a 34-20, 6 tries to 4 thriller.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Well one thing is for sure.

Rugby Union, as a game, does not need another tryless, kick-dominated borefest like the 2007 Final, not when the Rugby League World Cup Final a year later put our game to shame with a 34-20, 6 tries to 4 thriller.

You see, right there you totally lost every South African as we don't play rugby league at all here, if we do, then it's so small that it doesn't even make the cut to be on one of the 11 sports channels we have available to us.

to us there's just 7's and Rugby Union and that's good enough for us. World Cup finals will mostly be a borefest according to you, coz lets face it, which team won't try and get every point available when it's on offer? most teams won't do any risky stuff in a final because it is the Final. and that's maybe why the Boks do better at the WC because they are used to playing that game and taking every point they can.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Well one thing is for sure.

Rugby Union, as a game, does not need another tryless, kick-dominated borefest like the 2007 Final, not when the Rugby League World Cup Final a year later put our game to shame with a 34-20, 6 tries to 4 thriller.

That's what i don't understand (and I mean no offense here) but how can a final where one team wins by 14 points be labled a thriller and the other where the final scores were 6-15 but with the team on 6 putting massive pressure on the other team and the result could have gone the other way like that (and with that almost-try in the corner to boot) be considered a bore-fest. Couldn't another way to look at this be that the fans who considered it a bore fest might feel that way, to some extent, because their teams had been knocked out and hence, they've lost interest/investment in the game? maybe if we had Rugby league here we might feel otherwise, i guess. Don't people get anything from the chess-like probing for advanatge/weakness in looking for the other team to make a mistake or playing for territory?

 

[smartcooky]

That's what i don't understand (and I mean no offense here) but how can a final where one team wins by 14 points be labled a thriller and the other where the final scores were 6-15 but with the team on 6 putting massive pressure on the other team and the result could have gone the other way like that (and with that almost-try in the corner to boot) be considered a bore-fest. Couldn't another way to look at this be that the fans who considered it a bore fest might feel that way, to some extent, because their teams had been knocked out and hence, they've lost interest/investment in the game? maybe if we had Rugby league here we might feel otherwise, i guess.

The 2007 Final had 94 kicks in play, (48 by South Africa, 46 by England), that is one every 51 seconds. Most of those kicks were aimless ping-pong.

I sat and watched the final up to about 10 minutes after half time, at which point it dawned on me that neither side was the least bit interested in creating anything or doing anything else other than continuing the same boring kick-kick-kick-kick.

At this point, I gave up, turned off the TV and went outside to do some gardening. Watching the lawn grow was a lot more exciting, and if I had need to paint anything, I would have done that too, so that I could experience the excitement of watching it dry. To this day, I have never seen the last 30 minutes of the 2007 final, nor have I ever felt the urge to watch it

I find players running with the ball in hand, slick passing, sharp offloads and clever back play exciting. If I was excited by watching players endlessly kicking the ball to each other, I would watch Aussie Rules.

 

[Jer1cho]

The 2007 Final had 94 kicks in play, (48 by South Africa, 46 by England), that is one every 51 seconds. Most of those kicks were aimless ping-pong.

I sat and watched the final up to about 10 minutes after half time, at which point it dawned on me that neither side was the least bit interested in creating anything or doing anything else other than continuing the same boring kick-kick-kick-kick.

At this point, I gave up, turned off the TV and went outside to do some gardening. Watching the lawn grow was a lot more exciting, and if I had need to paint anything, I would have done that too, so that I could experience the excitement of watching it dry. To this day, I have never seen the last 30 minutes of the 2007 final, nor have I ever felt the urge to watch it

I find players running with the ball in hand, slick passing, sharp offloads and clever back play exciting. If I was excited by watching players endlessly kicking the ball to each other, I would watch Aussie Rules.

I agree. That final was terribly boring! It was far more exciting watching the New Zealanders run themselves into a panic, after which they ran to the airport to get on the plane. Flashy rugby is exciting to watch, but not clever to play in a World Cup final where the pressure put on the players is more than anything they will likely ever face again. Conservative rugby is the only way to win huge matches like that, where both teams know that all they need to do is lead on the points table. That means not getting into trouble within a kickable range. I don't think any of the Springboks gave a toss that day about who would find the way they are playing boring or exciting.

 

[LPsoldier ZA]

Ok then...come the knock out stages at the WC (and our teams are lucky enough to make it) you guys can kick all your penalties to touch to go for the try...we will kick them for goal.

 

[UilamOsa]

You see, right there you totally lost every South African as we don't play rugby league at all here, if we do, then it's so small that it doesn't even make the cut to be on one of the 11 sports channels we have available to us.

to us there's just 7's and Rugby Union and that's good enough for us. World Cup finals will mostly be a borefest according to you, coz lets face it, which team won't try and get every point available when it's on offer? most teams won't do any risky stuff in a final because it is the Final. and that's maybe why the Boks do better at the WC because they are used to playing that game and taking every point they can.

All teams will take the points on offer. The difference between the Boks & and All Blacks is how they go after points.

The Boks play to penalise teams for their inabilities under pressure, the All Blacks do that is just that they see that as only one of many avenues in which to play Rugby.

Also, South Africans should watch rugby league - especially the NRL. It may change your mind about oval balled sports and the shear beauty of using the ball.

Youtube Benji Marshall.

Quade Cooper is a poor man's Benji Marshall.

 

[SavageLez]

The RWC 1995 Final was probably one of the best TEST matches I have ever seen and there was not 1 try. In fact South Africa had 2 tries disallowed (Joost & Kruger). A Test match is not about how many tries one can score but rather about the physical battle, exchanges in the rucks, mauls, tackle areas. The battle in the tackle area, line outs and scrums. Just coz no tries are on the score board it does not mean that there was no great attack from both sides. Rugby has many facets to appreciate and the ultimate TEST match is how to integrate all those facets into play and to ultimately win the game whether tries are scored or not!

In New Zealands case great footy is running with the ball, get tackled, run with the ball, get tackled coz they have great ball skills. South Africa, England and others play to their strengths which is size and power. They do have ball skills but nowhere near NZ quality. So, if SA go and play NZ style they will obviously get hammered.

In a TEST match you play to your strengths and hopefully tries will result from that!

 

[TRF_heineken]

Also, South Africans should watch rugby league - especially the NRL. It may change your mind about oval balled sports and the shear beauty of using the ball.

Youtube Benji Marshall.

Quade Cooper is a poor man's Benji Marshall.

Nah, that's okay...

We like manly sports!

 

[DariusLovehall]

Nah, that's okay...

We like manly sports!

Played both - follow both ------ Leagues by far the harder sport.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Fair enough, continuous passing, running and trying to keep the ball alive is what is more entertaining to some. That doesn't mean others might find some other aspects just as intriguing. It's the variance and how you apply yourself that makes rugby the sport it is IMO.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Played both - follow both ------ Leagues by far the harder sport.

Harder as in physically challenging I suppose?

 

[nickdnz]

The problem with a RWC final that is a 6-9 game, is that while it can kind of be thrilling from a supporters perspective, there is nothing more tedious from a neutral perspective, especially when the teams spend as much time possible, limiting the amount of actual rugby being played. The RWC is the biggest showpiece for rugby, and there are millions of people who watch it from countries like the USA, China, Russia, Japan, India etc whom their only exposure to rugby is every four years. Now say what you like, but there are more kids who pretend to be Christian Cullen in those neutral countries than Francois Steyn. Why? Because a length of the field try is endlessly more exciting to watch from a neutrals perspective than a 48m penalty. In 2009 when from a New Zealanders perspective the rugby was pretty dull by our own ommission, more and more people started watching the NRL, which had plenty of excitement.

I'm not saying that South African rugby is not good rugby because it does take plenty of accuracy and aggression, but I honestly think that if the final is as boring as they have been, rugby's development in other countries will slow down. And to be honest, I don't think you will be seeing New Zealand throw 50/50 passes in a World Cup final, I think we'll be just a guilty as anyone of playing as little risky rugby as possible.

Played both - follow both ------ Leagues by far the harder sport.

Before this year I played very little league, but I started getting into it mid season just because I wanted to use it to improve my game. From an honest view point, I actually find league easier. That may just be me, but because I'm a very big guy and strong runner, league I found probably a little more second nature. In union I think the part where I loose most of my energy is actually contesting at the ruck, so as a forward that's what really tests out my fitness. In league as a forward I think you conserve so much more energy doing nothing other than moving up field after the first and second phase.

The players I've found are a lot bigger at club level in league than in union but for what ever pain you feel getting hit hard in the tackle, it's a much easier pill to swallow than making it to every second breakdown.

 

[Rhyer]

Completely agree with you.

See, the thing is, we play to our strengths. All this talk about 'we kicked our way through the 2007 WC' is rubbish. We thrashed Samoa, with Habana scoring 4 tries, we annihilated Argentina as well as England. The final was very close, and the English didn't allow us to play as flashy as we could. Look what happened to New Zealand against France in that tournament. All they had to do was force a penalty, or at least try to kick a drop goal, but they didn't. We do what we are good at, and that's play to our strengths. New Zealand are by far and away the best defensive side on the planet. If we don't manage to get some go forward through phases, should we just keep trying? No. You take the points that are on offer, then try again.

I don't find any of our rugby boring, but it's no secret that we don't have powerful runners like New Zealand have. Players like Israel Dagg are very very rare, and have a keen eye for running rugby. We don't have the same kind of players, as we put emphasis on physicality and set phases. England are similar, and Wales are as well. It's just the way our guys come through from school level. Most of this constant whinging regarding the excitement of watching the game are from sour fans. We play a traditional game, and play to our strengths.

If we do manage to get to the semi-finals and play New Zealand, then I would rather have our game plan in taking points on offer, and fighting for territory, than try to please fans with flashy moves and running out of our own 22. If the game opens up, we have the ability to score the points, and that is far more important than trying to look the flashiest.

Like I said though, New Zealand and Australia have devastating runners. Players like Dagg,SBW,Beale,Ioane and Dan Carter know exactly who to run at, and when to kick. We play a forward orientated game, and apart from Spies, Habana and Aplon, we don't have any players that have the kind of flair and savvy that the Australasians have. We prefer big ball carriers, and try to get ourselves into a position to score points. If it bores you so much, and you can't stand the fact that we can beat any team in the world by taking the points that are on offer, then simply don't watch, and wait for the hilights reel so that you can **** off all you like to the 100m tries, not taking the end result into consideration of course.

Pretty much agree with everything you just said.