If Wales beat South Africa on 11/9 they will overtake them in the IRB rankings.

First topic message reminder :

I've checked it and double checked it, but unbelievably it appears to be true.

And before posting this article I just had to triple-check it. And it's still valid.

This is not an outrageous ad for the IRB rankings sticky. Just a general dissemination of information.

RubyGuby wrote:Its funny how when England play badly and win it's that traditional good sign of a decent team who can win when playing poor - However when Wales win playing below par, it's luck

It's strange, isn't?

Its also a few years since 2008, and along long time since you beat SA. You need to move up a little and look at your results over the last 3 years, it might help with a sense of realism although I doubt it with those rose tinted glasses welded to your head. You concentrate on SA, Fiji and Samoa (whats your recent record against those sides like I wonder), your energy would be better analysing those games

see what I did there? Easy aint it?

when was the last time england beat south africa?

Irrelevant. The thread is about Wales and SA.

Wales v SA last 3 years

Wales 25 SA 29
Wales 31 SA 34
Wales 15 SA 20

Here's your last 6 against them MIGHTY indeed


Engalnd 11 SA 21
England 6 SA 42
England 6 SA 15
England 0 SA 36
England 22 SA 55
England 10 SA 58

Hows those glasses looking, I'd take them back for another pair MIGHTY

Wales last two games have been against scratch Bok sides made up of B and C team players whereas englands been bullied by Bok A teams for 5 of those 6 games

Bullsbok wrote:Wales last two games have been against scratch Bok sides made up of B and C team players whereas englands been bullied by Bok A teams for 5 of those 6 games

Yeah of course and we've always been at full strength for those games haven't we - Point I'm making Bok is that I see us losing by 10-15 plus against the Bok while this anglo considers his mighty side to be far superior and hence he might find the results list interesting and perhaps a little educative.

Poor correllation. Badly executed.

But its no more than I expected from you sonny.

scratch sides? thats a bit subjective, ONCE a side of european-based players was sent, and that was a game that finished within 5 points. Wales showed their weakness in hanging on to leads.

Great White, obviously England can better handle S.Africa

Irrelevant. Again. The thread is about Wales v SA.

Lets See , June the Boks sends out Euro Based players to honor the 10th anniversary of the Millenium Stadium and November South africa toured with 6-8 starters the rest were rookies some of who were going on tour for the first time

Let's be in no doubt that South Africa will start as strong favourites for this match.

What intrigues me is why an Englishman should be taking such a keen interest in a match that, as he keeps reminding us, doesn't involve his national side.

If Wales beat South Africa in the RWC, they'll overtake them in the rankings.

If Huw Bennett runs faster than Usain Bolt, he'll be the fastest man in the world over 100 meters.

If the sky was green, it wouldn't be blue.

All true. All irrelevant.

Because i'm entitled to an opinion (God knows the articles concerning English rugby are awash with Welshmen having their two-penneth). It's actually an opinion based on fact. Its not my fault if Ruby boy doesn't happen to like what i've written and then in an attempt to get back at me, dragged my national side into the equation.

Is it worth me asking who you'd like to see win the match?

I would like to see Wales win. I think it would be better for the competition as a whole.

I've misjudged you. I imagined you'd be delighted if Wales lost.

I know - it goes against the grain. But - it would make for interesting QF's if nothing else. If Wales could beat SA, I think they would go on to beat both Fiji & Samoa to top their group. I havent looked at the permutations, but doesn't that mean Wales would likely face England at some point?

Nonetheless, Wales losing to SA is the most likely outcome, and a bruising encounter at that. A loss here and I would guess that Wales would also lose to either Fiji or Samoa (not both).

I have a feeling that Wales are more likely to lose to either Fiji or Samoa if they beat the Springboks first up. If they win the 'big game' of the group, they might think that the job's done and see the remaining group games as formalities, which would be dangerously complacent.

I also think that having a tough group could be to Wales's advantage going into the latter stages of the competition (assuming they get that far, of course). It's a cliche to say that we'll be battle-hardened by our group matches, but it's true all the same. It's far better to qualify from a tough group than to get to the quarter finals without having been really tested.

But.... Wales do not have the strength in depth to sustain a bruising group campaign and then progress much further. Sorry, that's true.

Oh, absolutely. A few injuries to key players and we're sunk. But let's not talk about that!

I think that was what the trip to Spala was about, getting these guys toughened up and ready for the inevitable bashing everyone in this group will take. The players do seem a bit tougher physically and mentally.

What would happen if W & SA drew, then both beat the remaining teams in their pool, who would qualify top? The team with the betters points difference or amount of tries scored?

Unlikely I know, but its just crossed my mind!

It would be points difference first and if that was tied, trys scored.

If Wales beat SA I'll give up commenting on Rugby. I'm that convinced that a half-strength Bok pack would overrun a full strength Wales pack.

England playing poorly in Cardiff did enough to win that game with something to spare. They only had to kick for goal a few times and they would have won quite easily.

Bullsbok wrote:Wales last two games have been against scratch Bok sides made up of B and C team players whereas englands been bullied by Bok A teams for 5 of those 6 games

When I looked at the team on the day it said 'RSA' (Republik of South Africa) and not South Africa B or C. Love how these excuses have been flying around from the bok fans lately.

"Yes we got absolutely thrashed by Aus then thrashed by NZ a week later but it was our erm, B/C/D/Emerging Bok team."

To be fair, fielding teams denuded by injury is an excuse i've heard Welsh supporters using for years whenever they lose. In fact, most teams' supporters have used that excuse from time to time. Except the AB, who apparently only have Wayne Barnes to blame.

nottins_jones wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:Wales last two games have been against scratch Bok sides made up of B and C team players whereas englands been bullied by Bok A teams for 5 of those 6 games

When I looked at the team on the day it said 'RSA' (Republik of South Africa) and not South Africa B or C. Love how these excuses have been flying around from the bok fans lately.

"Yes we got absolutely thrashed by Aus then thrashed by NZ a week later but it was our erm, B/C/D/Emerging Bok team."

The funny thing is those same teams that got thrashed by our Tri nations brethen beat Wales....says a lot really

Team that got thrashed by NZ: Morne Steyn, Bjorn Basson, Adiran Jacobs, Juan De Jongh, Lwazi Movovo, Pat Lambie, Ruan Pienaar. Dean Greyling, John Smith(c), Werner Kruger, Gerhard Mostert, Alistair Hargreaves, Dean Stegmann, Jean Deysel, Danie Rososouw. Replacements, Ralepelle, Van Der Linde, Kankowske, Johnson, McLeod, Olivier, Ndungane.

Team that last beat Wales: Aplon, Basson, F Steyn, De Villiers, Habana, M Steyn, Pienaar. Mtawarira, Du Plessis, J Du Plessis, Botha, Matfield(c), Stegmann, Smith, Spies. Replacements, Ralepelle, van der Linde, Van Der Merwe, Albers, Hougaard, Kirchner, Lambie.


I know which is the strongest team there. I do enjoy myth busting sometimes. No such thing as an SA b/c team. Don't be so bitter and just enjoy the rugby, even if you are on the recieving end.

nottins_jones wrote: I know which is the strongest team there. I do enjoy myth busting sometimes. No such thing as an SA b/c team. Don't be so bitter and just enjoy the rugby, even if you are on the recieving end.

That statement is so likely to come back and bite you, i'm amazed you even considered writing it.

You guys can all relax, we aren't going to lose.

I'm just myth busting that's all. I'll be enjoying the world cup, I got three exciting Wales games to look forward to especially. Great White, not sure why you're getting involved but I don't take much notice of your comments, they're usually just un-funny/not so insulting/childish insults at people you don't agree with.

That's one of the most obvious cases of the pot calling the kettle black i've ever seen. Enjoy your (short) World Cup.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Btw back to my original discussion:

here is the team that beat a NZ at home missing 7 world class players.

Lambie, Pietersen, Fourie, De Villiers, Habana, Steyn, Du Preez. Steenkamp, Du Plessis, Du Plessis, Botha, Matifeld, Brussouw, Alberts, SPies. Replacements: SMit, Mtawarira, Van Der Linder, Rousoouw, Johnson, Hougaard, James.

Notice the similarities yet? bullsbok, which is team A, which is team B and which is team C?

Great White wrote:To be fair, fielding teams denuded by injury is an excuse i've heard Welsh supporters using for years whenever they lose. In fact, most teams' supporters have used that excuse from time to time. Except the AB, who apparently only have Wayne Barnes to blame.

GW, not quite true. Wayne Barnes, food poisoning and local TMOs will all do the trick.

It really doesn't matter, does it? What matters is what team South Africa put out on 11th September, what team we put out, and which team wins. Nothing we say here matters a jot.

This is PDV's team A, you can work it out for yourself.

Beast
John smit
Jannie du Plessis
Victor Matfield
Bakkies botha
Schalk burger
Pierre spies
Heinrich Brussow ( Juan Smith injured and out)
Fourie du Preez
Morne Steyn
Jean de Villiers
Jacue Fourie
Bryan Habana
JP Pietersen
FRans Steyn ( Although not 100% sure, he and PDv seems to have problems)

TheGreyGhost wrote:

Great White wrote:To be fair, fielding teams denuded by injury is an excuse i've heard Welsh supporters using for years whenever they lose. In fact, most teams' supporters have used that excuse from time to time. Except the AB, who apparently only have Wayne Barnes to blame.

GW, not quite true. Wayne Barnes, food poisoning and local TMOs will all do the trick.

You forgot to add 'being beaten at their own game', 'outplayed' and 'outhought'...

True luckless. Didn't hear any Kiwi's say their B team lost to SA though. Perhaps they could teach the South Africans how to be gracious...

Good team Bill, kind of similar if not identical to the ones I've seen face Wales. Is it un-true then, this South Africa B team analogy you(and others) have been mentioning during the RWC build-up?

True luckless. Didn't hear any Kiwi's say their B team lost to SA though. Perhaps they could teach the South Africans how to be gracious...

Yes im sure the phrase B Blacks which the team was labelled by the media doesnt mean B team at all


As for your premise that theres no B /C Bok team i'll put it this way for you .over the past decade the Boks have put out a team and whether its Hargreaves or Matfield in the 5 jersey or Mvovo or Habana in the 11 jersey they've still come out and beat Wales

We were too busy moaning about the TMO to whine about our team selection.

Besides, the team NZ played made enough chances to win, they just managed to mess every single chance (but one) up, so I don't think it was because of team selection, per se, that they lost.

Nottins the reason why we called the team taht went to NZ a B team is rather simple.

Our forward pack had 160 caps between them, of which 150 of those caps were between Smit and Rossouw.

The two front rankers had 0 caps. and the other 10 caps was between 4 guys.

The only regular first choice in the back line was Morne Steyn.
So whether you wnat to agree or not.

There were 4 players in that squad that were experienced enough including Ruan Pienaar, who has been 3 choice for most of his career behind Ricky January and Fourie du Preez.

Can't really call that anything else can you?

TheGreyGhost wrote:We were too busy moaning about the TMO to whine about our team selection.

Besides, the team NZ played made enough chances to win, they just managed to mess every single chance (but one) up, so I don't think it was because of team selection, per se, that they lost.

In south africa we never denied that is not a B team, but the difference was the All Black forwards had 320 caps between them, all with experience, and 160 caps in the back line.

With the experience of the All Black forwards they always had a chance of gaining parity in the tight phases and break downs, our forwards had no chance.

True which is why the win was not really celebrated . In fact victory was more relief than joy because if the Boks had lost against a weakend Black side our chances in the Cup were guaranteed to be cut short

THe fact is it doesn't really matter whether the welsh supporters see those teams as inferior bok teams or not. I have been trying to explain to them the team they will meet on the 11th will be more motivated, hungrier, more experienced, and much more intense than what has been seen in the past 2 years.

It is up to them whether they believe it or not, it is not long to go, then they will see what I have been trying to explain.

biltongbek wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:We were too busy moaning about the TMO to whine about our team selection.

Besides, the team NZ played made enough chances to win, they just managed to mess every single chance (but one) up, so I don't think it was because of team selection, per se, that they lost.

In south africa we never denied that is not a B team, but the difference was the All Black forwards had 320 caps between them, all with experience, and 160 caps in the back line.

With the experience of the All Black forwards they always had a chance of gaining parity in the tight phases and break downs, our forwards had no chance.

Of course they didn't though. The scrum was a disaster. The line out fell apart at critical times, they lost the collision area and struggled to break the advantage line when they tried to be direct.

A few were just back from injury and looked a yard or six off the pace, despite the caps.

Bullsbok wrote:

True luckless. Didn't hear any Kiwi's say their B team lost to SA though. Perhaps they could teach the South Africans how to be gracious...

Yes im sure the phrase B Blacks which the team was labelled by the media doesnt mean B team at all


As for your premise that theres no B /C Bok team i'll put it this way for you .over the past decade the Boks have put out a team and whether its Hargreaves or Matfield in the 5 jersey or Mvovo or Habana in the 11 jersey they've still come out and beat Wales

Ah right so that's two changes then? Bye bye SA b team myth.

I think Wales will find SA in a world cup in the SH a much tougher proposition than SA on an EOYT at home in Cardiff, even if the team named was identical.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:We were too busy moaning about the TMO to whine about our team selection.

Besides, the team NZ played made enough chances to win, they just managed to mess every single chance (but one) up, so I don't think it was because of team selection, per se, that they lost.

In south africa we never denied that is not a B team, but the difference was the All Black forwards had 320 caps between them, all with experience, and 160 caps in the back line.

With the experience of the All Black forwards they always had a chance of gaining parity in the tight phases and break downs, our forwards had no chance.

Of course they didn't though. The scrum was a disaster. The line out fell apart at critical times, they lost the collision area and struggled to break the advantage line when they tried to be direct.

A few were just back from injury and looked a yard or six off the pace, despite the caps.

Yes i agree with you wholheartedly, but remember we looked at it from the perspective of firstly how we expected this rusty, out of form players of south africa would play, and secondly what we expected from an experienced All Black pack.

I was as surprised as anyone else to see the real boks stand up. Remember they have been woeful in the past 2 years. they have only won 10 out of 21 tests, we didn't think they still wanted to play.

nottins_jones wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:

True luckless. Didn't hear any Kiwi's say their B team lost to SA though. Perhaps they could teach the South Africans how to be gracious...

Yes im sure the phrase B Blacks which the team was labelled by the media doesnt mean B team at all


As for your premise that theres no B /C Bok team i'll put it this way for you .over the past decade the Boks have put out a team and whether its Hargreaves or Matfield in the 5 jersey or Mvovo or Habana in the 11 jersey they've still come out and beat Wales

Ah right so that's two changes then? Bye bye SA b team myth.

no troll i just didnt want to go through the trouble of naming all the changes .Fine the Boks dont have a B team they just have an A team with 3 players per position who they regularly swap . Yes the Bok starting team has 45 players instead of the usual 15

You proposed that SA's B team lost to NZ but beat Wales. I simply showed you that it was not the case by looking at the last 2 fixtures against NZ and the last one against Wales.

That was my point.