South Africa, have the pundits missed a trick?

First topic message reminder :

I have been pondering the possibility of the Springboks being able to win this world cup, and after having seen the amount of criticism they have received (which is par for the course) I started to falter in my belief.

I prefer to read opinions on my team from sources outside of South Africa simply because your own press tends to be biased and do not provide an objective view on sports. So stuff.co.nz, the New Zealand Herald and The Australian are my preferred reading material.

It does take a lot of guts to listen to some of the overly biased pundits on these websites because as our pundits are biased towards us, these guys are even worse. There is little diplomacy or tact in the way they can criticise another team and they manage to rile their supporters into quite a frenzy at times.

This was clearly evident after the Samoa test where many comments were rather nasty towards South Africa.

Anyway through all this electronic information, every now and again you read something that makes you think.

I got a totally different perspective from reading this comment on the New Zealand herald.

Ybgur Noinu (Dunedin)
03:48 PM Tuesday, 4 Oct 2011
As Peter de Villiers explained, the Springboks were aware of the over robust play of the Samoans and decided to kick possession back at the Samoans after half time, so that the Springboks were no longer targets of the head high tackles. It was a ploy to keep the injury rate down.

Any one with brains can see that this is exactly what the Springboks did. They were in no danger of losing the match because if they wished they could have gone back into the tight mauls, kept possesion, forced penalties and scrums got the three pointers if their lead were threatened. They did just enough to win - in fact they did not even need to win anyway.

The Samoans played like desperados and were given possession purposely by the Boks, but could only score one try - off a knock-on. An actual try by the Boks was not given because of lack of evidence. Stop knocking the Springboks - their discipline had been good so far and they have played some real power rugby, which they can turn on in an instance. No one wants to admit it, but they are actually the team to beat.

This started to make me think that perhaps there are quite a number of pundits and posters alike that have missed a trick from the south Africans

What if:
Pieter de Villiers and his cohorts have used the pool matches as their preparation for the knock out rounds. As we all know the controversial Rustenburg saga ahs precluded the first choice players from playing some of the away matches of the Tri Nations.

What are the most important factors form a springbok point of view for retaining their trophy?

Defence:
Well they have been severely tested by Samoa and Wales in that department having made in excess of 300 tackles in those two matches.

Attack:
With both Wales and Samoa having very well organised defensive systems and being rather strong in the physical stakes, they had to execute well on attack to win these two matches, making 3 clean breaks, 12 defenders beaten and 15 offloads with the little possession they had. In my opinion it shows how clinical they were in finishing off the few opportunities they had.

In contrast to Wales and Samoa it seems they used the two test matches against Fiji and Namibia to hone their attacking skills making 11 clean breaks, 55 defenders beaten and 35 offloads. Granted neither Fiji or Namibia was really up to the task, but it could still be seen as a full contact practice run at worst.

Discipline:
They have shown to be the most disciplined team in the pool rounds of all the top teams and strangely were more penalised in attack than in defence, which tells me they handled the pressure in a very disciplined manner.

Goal kicking:
Morne Steyn has thus far been one of the stand out kickers during the tournament.

Matchday 22:
I think it is pretty clear who are the best 22 in the springboks squad, but for a few selection issues with John Smit and Bismarck du Plessis, Danie Rossouw and Bakkies Botha, and perhaps Francois hougaard and Fourie du Preez.

Impact subs:
South Africa have been able to test their bench during this time and I would be quite confident to say that in Bismarck du Plessis, Francois Hougaard, Willem Alberts and Beast Mtwarira we most likely have the best impact from the bench of all the teams.

So as much as I listen to the critics from all over the world, it is just maybe a case of everyone outside the camp missing a trick of what has been transpiring inside the springbok squad over the past few weeks.

Either that, or I am just blowing smoke up my own back side.

I know! I know!

You and GG have been spewing your S**t for months now,,,,for months now.

I've never seen that innovative quadruple comma punctuation that you've used their HERSH, do please enlighten us as to what it means?

HERSH wrote:I agree with Bath

NZ are F*****D without Carter once the heat is turned up.

Oh how I'll laugh

Hersh you HAVE to be the reason for contraception. I'd take Slade over Wilko or Flood at present. Bet you were one of those idiots who laughed upon finding out he was hurt. Jog on man-I'm disappointed Sheridan Rees Smith et al are no longer playing. NZ are still good enough to hump most of the teams left even without that one player.

I think it is a stupid things to say that NZ are in trouble without Carter. This is a real underestimation of the rest of the NZ team, particularly the forwards. Carter is no doubt a special part of a magnificient team, but it is the forwards like Franks, Mealamu, Thorn, Kaino, McCaw, Read that get the ball for him and then the outside backs like Smith, Nonu, Dagg, Guildford that still have to finish the moves. The rest of the NZ team will still outplay their counterparts in their opposition and slade is a good quality footballer who will do the job for them.

Don't get me wrong I'm gutted for Carter, but am I sorry for the NZ fans that make the lives of others a misery on 606v2, no.

The Sooner GG picks up another ban the better, the bloke is a waste of cyber space.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Actually, no the point is just bordering on ignorance, frankly. NZ have a lot of game breakers and I think many of them are equally as imperious in their positions as DC.

I'll excuse your ignorance of the rugby world outside of New Zealand. Does having such an imperious attitude come with having so many imperious players?

HERSH wrote:Don't get me wrong I'm gutted for Carter, but am I sorry for the NZ fans that make the lives of others a misery on 606v2, no.

Hey GG stop making my life a misery!

Yeah, mine too, I am tired of having to keep you in check.

HERSH wrote:Don't get me wrong I'm gutted for Carter, but am I sorry for the NZ fans that make the lives of others a misery on 606v2, no.

The Sooner GG picks up another ban the better, the bloke is a waste of cyber space.

Now now....what's with the personal attack HERSH? We're just talking about Rugby, and your revealing psychological predilection for rejoicing in the misfortune of others.

This kind of behaviour normally arises through one or more of three scenarios:

a) when observers gain a heightened sense of security from the misfortune of others
b) when observers deem the misfortune is deserved
c) when misfortune befalls someone you are envious of

So a) I can understand that your team has gained from the loss of DC. Let's face it, you had no chance of winning against a full strength AB squad, so I can understand your gleeful little yelps and over-use of dancing emoticons at your slightly improved chances of not been humiliated should you meet NZ.

b) I can't think that DC has done anything to you personally, although the ABs have certainly dished out a number of stuffings to your team over the last decade. I can imagine that hurt your pride immensely, so perhaps (charitably) it's the idea that someone who caused you so much pain, has now been dealt such an unfortunate, untimely and painful blow.

c) Speaks for itself. I guess you are jealous that your country never turns out stars of this calibre and I can see how the insane jealousy and rage that must arise from only being able to import the ones that NZ picked over and discarded first must make your blood boil with despair.

All in all, I hope that you can find something in yourself to be proud of, and can end this perpetual petulant need to try to provoke others ire to gain their attention.

Good luck with the rest of the cup.

I am so proud of you.

So anyway, back on topic...Yes the pundits have missed a trick but then the ITV ones don't seem to be able to see past England as finalists even though they've been poor.

How big a loss is Steyn? PDV says SA will miss him more than NZ will miss Carter. Is that true or is he talking rot again? Anyway I still reckon SA will win it

GG I have no idea what you are saying as I've blacklisted you son till after the RWC.

I expect it’s the usual tripe, you're just jealous blah blah blah.

Nz are great blah blah.

One question, what are NZ so great at?

Running blocking lines and obstructions?
Hype?
Cheating?
Pre game Dancing?

Please do tell us.

ROFL Biltong

mckay1402 wrote:So anyway, back on topic...Yes the pundits have missed a trick but then the ITV ones don't seem to be able to see past England as finalists even though they've been poor.

How big a loss is Steyn? PDV says SA will miss him more than NZ will miss Carter. Is that true or is he talking rot again? Anyway I still reckon SA will win it

In my opinion what we lose with frans steyn is better gain line ball and distribution, but hopefully he has inspired Jean de villiers.

HERSH wrote:GG I have no idea what you are saying as I've blacklisted you son till after the RWC.

I expect it’s the usual tripe, you're just jealous blah blah blah.

Nz are great blah blah.

One question, what are NZ so great at?

Running blocking lines and obstructions?
Hype?
Cheating?
Pre game Dancing?

Please do tell us.

Pretty much all four of those Hersh-beating the living **** out of the 'Home' Unions perpetually is another you could add.

HERSH wrote:GG I have no idea what you are saying as I've blacklisted you son till after the RWC.

I'm on the HERSH black list until the end of England's world cup? Oh no! You won't get to read any of my pearls of wise insight until Sunday?

you mean saturday morning. he'll at least be in time to read it whilst having his english breakfast.

Come on he'll be gutted not to get any of your remarks on the Wales Ireland game.

You are looking at the GG wrong, Hersh.

Gotta remember he's a hero to many: sitting there anonymously in London bravely being rude in a hilariously stereotyped way about his host nation. That's something to be proud of, no?

It is most certainly not the behaviour of a rather pitiable little soul at all. I feel genuinely sorry for people who actually do carry around that sort of bitterness on a permanent basis - it tends to curdle people like old milk. And the GG doesn't come across as having a touch of the lemon about him, social or otherwise, now does he?

Leave him to those who appreciate what a superb ambassador he is for his country. Do try to remember that most kiwis don't live up to his quite remarkable standards, at least not in my experience. They are, after all, only human.

I loved this reader's comment from the Herald, on who Kiwis should back in the SA v Aus semi...

"I can't bring myself to back either team. Can they both lose? No? Okay, here is what I want.

I want it to be a real battle. Two teams throwing each other against themselves for 80mins non-stop. A huge number of injuries, red cards, penalties, and fights.

Then at the end of 80mins, when it is still nil all, they play another 10 mins each way in extra time - 20 further brutal mins of hard rugby as the two teams - ragged and near collaspe - continue the battle.

Then, when it is still nil all, and the final 10mins of sudden death rugby is over - and the men on the field are battered, bruised and bleeding, mere shadows of themselves at the start of the match - they go into the kicking competition and all potential kickers get 'Dan Cartered'.

After that I wouldn't really care who wins but will love to see the All Blacks play the walking wounded a week later and sweep up the remains on the way to the final.

So there you are - may the best team win!"

Who said we're not a generous and sporting lot?

sigh. It's probably how most English football fans would be about a football WC. Doesn't mean I have to respect it.

Assuming it's serious and not tongue in cheek. Can't tell without more context.

Hi Ghost, yeah I read that poll on the herald it seems that it is about a 50/50 split amongst the kiwi's

I think it was best said on one rugby show. Marc ellis said with SA we could get them at about a 8/10.
With oz we could get a 2 or a 12.

Its the 12 we worry about. The other possibilites we can probably handle.