Rugby Championship 2014: Patterns and Predictions

by kiakahaaotearoa Mon 16 Dec 2013, 8:55 am

The venues for the Argentinian home games are yet to be confirmed along with the kick off times but already most of the fixtures for the 2014 RC have been decided. There is a familiar feel to them.

Date Time Home Score Away Venue
16/08/2014 TBC Australia - - New Zealand ANZ Stadium, Sydney
16/08/2014 TBC South Africa - - Argentina Loftus Versfeld, Pretoria
23/08/2014 TBC New Zealand - - Australia Eden Park, Auckland
23/08/2014 TBC Argentina - - South Africa TBC
06/09/2014 TBC Australia - - South Africa Patersons Stadium, Perth
06/09/2014 TBC New Zealand - - Argentina McLean Park, Napier
13/09/2014 TBC Australia - - Argentina Skilled Park, Gold Coast
13/09/2014 TBC New Zealand - - South Africa Westpac Stadium, Wellington
27/09/2014 TBC South Africa - - Australia Newlands, Cape Town
27/09/2014 TBC Argentina - - New Zealand TBC
04/10/2014 TBC South Africa New Zealand Ellis Park, Johannesburg
04/10/2014 TBC Argentina - - Australia TBC

The patterns of the fixtures are becoming familiar to us. SA has a gruelling travel schedule in the first part of the competition. In part, that is compensated by the fact that Argentina seem nowhere near prepared for their first match, and playing at altitude on a dry deck only exacerbates that fact. So it seems safe to assume that Argentina will suffer a bonus point defeat at the hands of Argentina in their first match. What seems to be a pattern so far is that they come back stronger in their home game. Can SA extract a bonus point win there and apply pressure to NZ?

Similarly, Sydney has seen a loose but comfortable victory for NZ. Can a resurgent Australia stop that from occurring and can they get a victory? That would really throw a cat among the pigeons. Like Argentina, Australia have come back usually stronger in the NZ away test but the result has never been in doubt. The Eden Park venue is an intimidating one for Australia. That starts NZ's 3 home game streak but usually against Argentina they have been unable to secure a bonus point victory. They have usually put in a sub-par performance and pulled away only in the final quarter. The weather conditions - rainy usually - and playing at night only serve to make this result more likely. If NZ can secure a bonus point in this match, it alleviates the pressure in the latter part of the tournament. But in a way I'm not so sure if this is a good thing to have that pressure relieved because usually at the business end of the competition NZ has pulled out its best performances often because that pressure to win has been there. If SA lose away to Australia and NZ have a bonus point cushion, I think they are more likely to fall at Ellis Park. Having that pressure to perform is a good thing in my opinion. What do you think?

by kiakahaaotearoa Mon 16 Dec 2013, 9:37 am

What makes it difficult to predict next year's results is that we don't know if Australia have lifted their game sufficiently against the top sides or how much improvement they have left in them. If they can upset either SA or NZ I only see that benefiting the other team rather than Australia itself as I don't see them with a strong enough squad to sustain that level of a performance over the tournament yet.

For the moment I see the NZ SA matches as the key ones and scrambling for bonus points will again probably see a do or die showdown at Ellis Park. The season will be structured that the Ellis Park match is the one NZ need to peak for but much will depend on whether they have any banana skins along the way. The same applies to SA. They will feel their home game advantage at Ellis Park was lost due to the way they approached that game. They will be working hard to ensure that the final game requires a win from them and they can use any tactics they desire to achieve that. Australia to me rather than Argentina are the team that can foil those plans for both NZ and SA.

by Taylorman Mon 16 Dec 2013, 11:15 pm

Havent said it either of the last two years but I'm going for another 6-0er for the year.

For one Oz are certainly in rebuild and still have the inconsistency problems that plague them year in year out. Argentina have gone backwards since year 1 and only look to be close to a win when they play SA at home. Can't even see that being close next year.

For SA, regardless of their improvement, theyve still gone sideways when it comes to NZ in a results sense.

They've opened their game up but when its versus NZ, its warts and all. In terms of results alone they've had closer results in previous years- Sowetto and Dunedin were matches they should have won more than either Eden Park or Ellis this year. NZ are far more accomplished at the open game, the Boks relative newbies.

For NZ our newbies will only getter stronger with the AI's and another sxv series prior to the RC and all round none of the 3 is a match for NZ at the moment. They've continued to repel everything the 3 sides have thrown at them for 12 straight matches.

Until SA learn to play the new style with a properly functioning backline, lead by a front foot 10 and a Fullback that has real vision, it won't 'click' against the AB's, though it will be enough vs everyone else.

For me, based on 2012 and 2013 the AB's have to get worse to lose a test and much worse to lose the title, and I dont see either happening.

SA will be the focus at Ellis again, then at home, and the rest will follow.

Theres every reason we might lose a test or two in 14, but so was there in 12 and 13, so I'll go with the status quo for no other reason that that.

by Scratch Mon 16 Dec 2013, 11:20 pm

SA for me.

On the up and NZ sacred cows McCaw and Carter, are starting to creak.

it would be great for the comp if SA can step up and put the ABs back in their box if even for a little while.

by Taylorman Mon 16 Dec 2013, 11:37 pm

True...they've been out of that box for quite a while now...is the box still around?

Neither McCaw nor DC were critical to this years wins and its likely we'll have better players than both at their current levels when the RC hits- its the rest that will provide most of the pain. NZ has far more depth than any of the 3 by quite some margin overall where Oz and SA have several key players they can't really replace easily.

by **Biltong** Mon 16 Dec 2013, 11:54 pm

I expect the Springboks to step up next year.

Last year was all about rebuilding a new pack, we basically only had a front row and nothing else.

We have now got depth in the pack, bar a few injuries that kept players out that could have added even more depth.

The backline has grown in depth and although a number of players were injured or didn't get enough opportunity that will change next year.

As far as tactics SA was on the backfoot for two major reasons when it came to the AB's.

Edenpark fiasco.
No bonus point at Capetown.

If we didn't lose Bismarck for the majority of the match the result could have been closer.

If we didn't fall asleep in Capetown we could have scored one more try to secure a bonus point.

So instead of being three points behind NZ we were 5 points behind. Now it is easy to suggest we were outplayed and didn't show enough tactical nous and balance (which I do agree with) but the other side of the coin is we showed we can run holes through znew Zealand's defences.

I think to suggest we went sideways against NZ is absolute nonsense.

The AB's know if they want to win the RC next year they will need to lift even more against SA. We will definitely lift from where we were this year.

There is a lot of luck in rugby these days. The wheel turns and I suspect after some shyte bounces f the ball since the RWC in 2011, our turn is coming.

by GloriousEmpire Mon 16 Dec 2013, 11:57 pm

After NZ take England apart they'll be on the 17 match spree, so 6-0 will set a new world record at 23, meaning they may go into 2015 having lost just the one match since prior to the previous World Cup. When that happens we will be looking at the greatest side ever.

by Taylorman Tue 17 Dec 2013, 12:14 am

Biltong- I said sideways 'in a results' sense.

Which is true- they have no better results than the past 3 years where they are still 0 and 2 and have had closer losses in terms of results- you can't deny that- Sowetto and Dunedin from 10 and 12 (forget 11) respectively were closer from a winning perspective.

Agree SA will step up, but they will also need to, and in doing so, they also leave more areas open for the AB's to pillage.

And you must break the habit of putting losses down to 'incidentals' that make for feel good tangibles that you can pin a loss on without actually having substantial evidence to support it.

The DP send off, the bonus point, the ref... fact is across the field they were beaten, outhought, out smarted and its been that way since 2010.

We had more reasons to lose at Ellis than you poke a stick at so 'four point bonus' as a defence doesnt wash. We didnt need 15 on the field yet youre suggesting SA were hampered severely because of it. That immediately sums the sides up for me. One can handle the obstacles thrown at them and one can't- yet.

Where SA has made improvements is in attaining a level of play that has allowed them to win matches they should- by having more options available to them. What they have yet to show is how to win matches they shouldnt, and Eden park and Ellis showed they are not there yet and in 2014 the AB's are going to press that point home again if even for their own survival.

But 12-0 is 12-0 no matter which way you look at it. A totally commanding position. And SA have it uphill big time next year to win even one.

As you've said on many a post- theyve go to win. Simple as that. Nothing else matters. And that sill holds true.

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Dec 2013, 12:35 am

The DP send off, the bonus point, the ref... fact is across the field they were beaten, outhought, out smarted and its been that way since 2010.

Lets just day the results went New Zealand's way, the record books will show NZ had the perfect year.

Outthought? In terms of what?

That statement in itself says nothing, we had the game to beat New Zealand, the 1 man advantage we had at Ellispark did not make up for the rest of the tournament.

Outsmarted?

How did they outsmart us?

The simple fact is our mindset was to play a new game that irrespective of the bounce of the ball was good enough to thump every one else, but not good enough to win against the AB's this year.

We have much, much more room to improve than NZ has, your improvements are incremental, you can't really pick a much stronger squad, you can't really get fitter, you can't really get less cards, you can't really improve more than incremental steps at the current quality the AB's bring.

We can earn many, many less cards, we can improve our fitness much, much more, we can play more intelligently and make better decisions, have more balance, bring in an attacking flyhalf, distribute better, etc etc.

by Taylorman Tue 17 Dec 2013, 1:22 am

Yes but you make it sound like all thats needed is a few building blocks in the right and presto we have an AB beating team. Doesnt work like that. The AB's will learn from that, they wont leak tries as easily as Ellis- why? Because rarely do sides do anything twice in a row let alone consistently.

The AB's will improve- simply because they have to. You say its incremental but only because theres nothing to compare us to. We didnt have a side above us to show us our shortcomings in the way that we did SA so thats a flawed argument. Youre talking about a gap that current exists for SA. To say theyre level of improvement is therefore potentially larger is just a fallacy.

The AB's as usual will determine their own levels of improvement- not base it on some gap that may or may not exist.

And SA are entering an arena of play that the AB's have practically defined over the years. they've faced all the scenarios of the style of play- SA havnt- they surprised the AB's by their change in game from Eden park and its not as if they'll do that every game.

They may have to go backwards to go forwards with this style of play particularly if it involves changes with the same players- Alberts for example. How great is his impact when the game is more open? So far not so good vs the ABs. Will he be as effective if the extra fitness work compromises his physicality.

Chnaging a gameplan as drastically as SA has with the same players will have its trade offs and you could find if the Boks try the Ellis game again next year they get done. hey need to find a balance yet find a way to win at the same time. A tall ask.

by GloriousEmpire Tue 17 Dec 2013, 1:40 am

NZ had a perfect year "in the record books"? Starting to sound like you've got some welsh blood there BT!

As we've seen "moral victories", claims of "devalued wins" and so forth don't really provide any long term satisfaction.

NZ went down to England, next year came back and had them for breakfast. This NZ team and their coaches are smart. I think that claiming some sort of three year "lucky streak" is starting to sound a bit desperate.

by Taylorman Tue 17 Dec 2013, 1:54 am

Next years about building on our depth. SA will find out the hard way what an expansive gameplan can do injury wise. Faster game means bigger collisions, more pulled muscles, tendons etc. They get enough injuries as it is but opening you game up can only up the ante on injuries, as the body on a whole is pushed more.

Its the depth I think that will define NZ next year. If SA were to lose DP, JDV, Vermulens and Le Roux theyll find it hard replacing them, none anywhere near as effective as the four. Same with Cooper, Hooper, Moore, Folau in Oz.

Hansens been smart in using the last two years to bring in as many players as he can, even though he didnt need to...why...because he knows the value of depth...real depth, test match hardened depth.

by Guest Tue 17 Dec 2013, 2:59 am

I still struggle with the SA have so much room to improve but the ABs don't theory. SA are playing catch up and trying to imitate a game plan that has been alien to them for so long. If it was as easy to 'improve' as it's implied then I'm sure all teams would do so easy peasy. How about if the ABs improve our forwards to be like SA, then what? Because let's face it, there is much room for improvement there. Is that scary?

by Taylorman Tue 17 Dec 2013, 5:10 am

Not sure that NZ is that inferior to SA in the forwards as a rule. Its just that the absence of other areas make SÀ stronger relatively in that area.
They're now at a stage where they must evolve to get stronger.

Its how Meyer uses the sxv from here in that will provide the boks with its power, something that SA have so far been poor at, maximising the wealth of talent, by sticking to old war plans, past due date players and safety and security of the pack with low risk backplay, keeping the ball in front of the pack.

The le rouxs of bok rugby must be allowed to flow through to the top side. That's where the immediate future is. The steyns and Kirchner's have to go, too one dimensional in their scope and ability.

I'm not convinced in the potential of the boks back row either. They've made it to the top under the old guard and I think as a whole they're too big for the new expectations and others will appeal more, perhaps bar vermuelens, the most mobile of the three.

I'll admit I'm probably harder than most on the boks and always have been and I agree with biltong that they have the biggest scope for improvement. But for me that's always been purely because of their domestic levels. The inability to put out a side 20-30% better than the best sxv side has never happened as far as I'm concerned. SA needs to adopt a style it wants to play as a nation rather than have variations across the park due to tradition alone. Only then will it better serve its national side.

So until they win a test vs the ABs its all conjecture, and one that currently supports an AB win between the two. Question is are the improvements enough for 2014.

by kiakahaaotearoa Tue 17 Dec 2013, 6:02 am

Good to see the banter already happening. In a way the championship is great in that SA and NZ meet each other in the latter half of the comp. It's set up for a NZ SA finale. I still think Australia and Argentina can prove a thorn in either of those sides if they don't put in the right performance. So far we've seen the Australia side 2 - 0 down after the first two games and it's difficult to pick yourselves up from that start. Imagine the other way round or at least 1 - 1 and SA would find the going much tougher, as Wallaby confidence would be through the roof. Whereas two wins for SA and they arrive in Australia and NZ with a hungry, determined look about them. It's interesting how the set up can change the way the championship pans out. We saw that with the draw in the first year in Argentina and how much less pressure there was compared to the second year where SA won and secured bonus points.

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Dec 2013, 6:23 am

Taylorman, you are trying to convince yourself, let's just wait and see.

by kiakahaaotearoa Tue 17 Dec 2013, 6:48 am

We're all guessing BB as that's the point of the thread. But just like your David and Goliath thread on another site, NZ won't be standing still and you seem to be discounting any improvement on NZ's part.

You say SA had a front row and nothing else. I'm willing to look past that exaggeration but you believe now with that added depth you can build on that growing experience. Well the same applies to NZ. Players like Retallick, Luatua, Faumuina, Coles aka Mealamu are just as experienced as Louw, Vermeulen, Engelbrecht etc and still have a lot of growth ahead of them. Perhaps you too are trying to convince yourself? Hug

I know you'll just say we'll just have to wait and see and fair enough. You're taking note of these comments and will remind us of them later! You're counting on SA to show improvement. I don't doubt that. But you'll forgive us for thinking NZ are very mindful of SA's room for improvement which will require improvement on our part. Stand still in this game and rest on your laurels and you get found out. Innovate and shift the point of attack / defence is the way to stay ahead.

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Dec 2013, 7:07 am

Kia, mate look at the logic of it all.

Go through the season and look at what went wrong for us and then look at what went wrong for NZ.

Discipline wise we were one of the least penalised teams, yet one of the most carded teams.

That impacted more on our performances.

Our mindset in game were very much one track minded as we got used to playng the attacking game, often negating defensive structure for attack, that balance became more and more evident by November.

We conceded only a solitary try in the AI's whilst scoring 8 tries and still had 2 tries disallowed which on analysis by the SA referee website should have been given.

The AB's tactical kicking was near perfect this season, something we weren't, there is much improvement to be had there.

As Taylorman himself conceded the Springboks haven't played a new style for long, so it can only improve.

When I say New Zealand can only improve incrementally it isn't a criticism but a reality of when you are at the top, and you are playing near perfect rugby, how much more can you realistically improve upon?

by Guest Tue 17 Dec 2013, 7:31 am

Teams will figure the boks out and play a style that curtails this 'room for improvement'.

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Dec 2013, 7:52 am

Kia wrote:You say SA had a front row and nothing else. I'm willing to look past that exaggeration but you believe now with that added depth you can build on that growing experience.

Not sure what is an exaggeration there.

Our pack was decimated after 2011.

No victor, Bakkies, Danie, Schalk, Pierre, Juan etc.

by kiakahaaotearoa Tue 17 Dec 2013, 8:27 am

BB the scrum, the breakdown were far from perfect. Not as bad as some would paint them but certainly areas in which we can look for gains. Our game was built on running down teams and capitalizing on mistakes. The RC games played out in that respect but the AIs showed us the fragility of that gameplan when teams don't make mistakes and apply pressure on the scoreboard. I agree that our improvement on our current game plan is potentially less than that of SA exploring a more varied game. But that's assuming NZ retain their current gameplan. I do not see that happening. The AI games will see the brains trust return to the thinking board. We have to come up with a different approach as SA will think next year they can refine their game and negate the NZ one. But NZ won't try to improve on what they did.

I foresee a rejig of the contact area. Not all the time but picking the monents. More players to the breakdown and finding holes up the centre rather than keeping players out of the contact area and shifting the ball wide to find gaps. Our counter attack saw space out wide but too often we went lateral in open play and got caught before the gain line, shut down in the centres or squeezed out wide. I can see the territory game continued with tactical aerial kicking but also returning more ball with running. If other teams can use the rolling maul from Lineout ball I can see NZ utilizing this tactic. Shifting the points of attack. Keeping the other teams guessing as to what they can do to unlock NZ. That's what's being ignored here.

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Dec 2013, 8:54 am

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:BB the scrum, the breakdown were far from perfect. Not as bad as some would paint them but certainly areas in which we can look for gains. Our game was built on running down teams and capitalizing on mistakes. The RC games played out in that respect but the AIs showed us the fragility of that gameplan when teams don't make mistakes and apply pressure on the scoreboard. I agree that our improvement on our current game plan is potentially less than that of SA exploring a more varied game. But that's assuming NZ retain their current gameplan. I do not see that happening. The AI games will see the brains trust return to the thinking board. We have to come up with a different approach as SA will think next year they can refine their game and negate the NZ one. But NZ won't try to improve on what they did.

I foresee a rejig of the contact area. Not all the time but picking the monents. More players to the breakdown and finding holes up the centre rather than keeping players out of the contact area and shifting the ball wide to find gaps. Our counter attack saw space out wide but too often we went lateral in open play and got caught before the gain line, shut down in the centres or squeezed out wide. I can see the territory game continued with tactical aerial kicking but also returning more ball with running. If other teams can use the rolling maul from Lineout ball I can see NZ utilizing this tactic. Shifting the points of attack. Keeping the other teams guessing as to what they can do to unlock NZ. That's what's being ignored here.

I disagree with you, Everyone knows that New Zealand is always working on their game, I said as much in that article you eluded to earlier on the roar.

It may be a poor comparison, but when you look at a 100 meter athlete, it is easier to bring your times down from 11 to 10 seconds than from 10 seconds to 9.7

by kiakahaaotearoa Tue 17 Dec 2013, 9:26 am

If you're talking about the pack then that's fine. I interpreted it as the entire team.

That example is a poor one I'm afraid. 100m is a singular focus: reach the 100m in the fastest time possible. There may be different components to achieving that but the mechanics are the same. NZ will always pride itself on doing the basics well. Things won't change in that regard and when you see for example how many points Australia didn't convert against Wales, it shows you how far some teams are behind others in this regard. Take into account the changes NZ has made from 2009, enforced by SA's dominance, and look at what they've done and the focus has been different each year. SA said before the start of this year we're going to focus on the breakdown and that they did and looked very effective in that area. Are they going to do the same this year? When you do something well you don't concentrate on it again. Maybe he'll say we'll improve our defence this year. So they set about improving that but to do that you need to sacrifice other areas which will leave SA vulnerable in other areas they weren't vulnerable this year. You simply cannot say we were weak in these areas and will improve our fitness and improve our defence and all the good things will be retained. If SA improve their fitness then you change body compositions and you lose something at the breakdown or at set piece because in order to gain fitness you lose body mass. A general description but my point is you focus on some areas you lose something in other areas. NZ didn't put numbers at the breakdown and were caught out there but not hitting rucks and mauls means less fatigue and you make that count at the end of the game. You can't be supermen in every facet.

by GloriousEmpire Tue 17 Dec 2013, 10:00 am

The idea that SA are very disciplined but over-carded is based on the straw man argument initiated by the Aussies that there should be a linear correlation between those two stats.

It is, however a straw man. That only holds for the sub-population of cadres handed out for persistent infringing.

To pretend that South Africa's last 6 losses to NZ are attributable to a global refereeing bias is a it PDivvy, is it not?

If you go back over all of SA cards and provide stats for how many were a result of persistent infringing and how many were one-off cynical acts of foul play then it will give a better picture of what SA problem may be in that area.

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Dec 2013, 10:28 am

Ah man to be able to understand your thought processes is a mystery to me.

Straw based argument?

SA conceded 111 penalties this year, received 11 yellow cards and one red card.
NZ conceded 145 penalties this year and received 7 yellow cards.
Oz conceded 170 penalties this year, received 8 yellow cards and one red card.

So SA got a card per 9.25 penalties
Oz got a card per 18.9 penalties
NZ got a card per 20.7 penalties.

Not everything can be related to PDV, and I was not talking of previous years, I specifically mentioned this year. As this was the year where we changed our style of play.

by Taylorman Tue 17 Dec 2013, 11:08 am

What are the breakdown of those penalties and cards in terms of infringements of a physically dangerous one compared to those of an offside, not releasing etc nature biltong? I'm guessing SA has a higher % of the former...might be wrong though.
I'm not doing any convincing. I'm just saying how it is. You are predicting this turnaround from the boks. That is what is yet to happen.
Your comparison of the 100m time thing is OK in one respect but only because no one is ahead of the ABs. Its just as easy to say if NZ were out of the picture and we're comparing Argie vs the boks. One one hand argie might say the boks level of improvement can't be more than the argie whereas the argie have room for much more. Yet it doesn't mean that argie are necessarily going to improve in relation to the boks yet the logic for it is there. They're much further behind.

The point being made here is the better the boks may or may not be getting...it still isn't enough. If it was the boks should have won at Ellis. Simple as that.fitness and defence as well as the Abs being able to overcome the traditional reasons...at our worst venue globally, at altitude and having a man down for 20 minutes at a crucial period in the second half. To then suggest the bonus point as a defence is laughable. Point is we overcome the obstacles placed in front of the side. Not hide behind them so give the boks more credit than that.

Overall I think you're just underestimating the qualities of this AB side. To suggest they can't improve as much is wishful thinking. I'd say with the players we have introduced last two years we have more room for improvement than anyone else.

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Dec 2013, 11:21 am

Tman, you are missing the big picture here.

You are only looking at two results to convince yourself Sa has not improved.

Last year when we performed poorly we drew matches, this year we won those matches, also we have won matches more convincingly than last year, in spite of two tries being disallowed we still beat the French comfortably, in the RWC it cost us a win.

Progress is not measured by one opponent only. It is measured as a whole, not part of a whole.

If you cannot see we have progressed purely based on the losses against NZ then we aren't really going to make any progress ourselves debating the point, are we?

by Taylorman Tue 17 Dec 2013, 11:28 am

I'm agreeing progress has been made but it has not got them any closer to the ABs. So by inference the ABs must be improving at at least the same rate. That is what you're not getting. What has worked against all others is not working vs the Abs yet you're prepared to argue that it is the boks that have the monopoly on the improvement race? We now have the first 100% pro era year. Is our improvement rate as negligible as youu would have us believe?

by Taylorman Tue 17 Dec 2013, 12:12 pm

In looking at the draw I think it suits us as a front runner. In getting oz in Sydney we have zero time to warm into the tourney where SA with argie at home is the easiest match possible. We also have England over three before it so will be fairly hardened by the time the RC rolls around.

Ellis looks to be a potential decider again and the SA vs oz and us at westpac look to be where SA again need to put points and tries on the board.
All of this assumes no AB loss before ellis so that could go wrong but with now 12-0 that assumption is a fair one and statically the most likely so why not. No one knows yet what it truly takes to down this AB side...they all just think they know...

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Dec 2013, 12:16 pm

Taylorman wrote:I'm agreeing progress has been made but it has not got them any closer to the ABs. So by inference the ABs must be improving at at least the same rate. That is what you're not getting. What has worked against all others is not working vs the Abs yet you're prepared to argue that it is the boks that have the monopoly on the improvement race? We now have the first 100% pro era year. Is our improvement rate as negligible as youu would have us believe?

I suggest we just wait for next year.

by Taylorman Tue 17 Dec 2013, 12:32 pm

Perhaps. Sounds vaguely familiar to this time last year.

Sxv will influence this RC at least with the injury levels. Returning players like Burger and goosen for SA, kaino and smith with Benji an interest at 10 for the blues and some returning oz players will alter the environment a little as well.

I'm optimistic the ABs can take it to another level and we can leave our mandatory required loss before the 2015 wcup to the rc of that year.

Depth is starting to look like a key word over the next 24 months and that's where I see our primary advantage is.

by kiakahaaotearoa Tue 17 Dec 2013, 1:17 pm

Good to see Toulon Chiefs game cancelled. Abs need a rest in that side. Management of AB players in Super sides needs to happen. England are a stern test and a good preparation for SA. Try out a few new things at breakdown and in the pack.

Minimising Super injuries will be key and new faces are bound to pop up. Veterans and inexperienced players will be managed and SA will be targeted as games where top side have to be in peak condition. Australia are a potential banana skin so the foot must be kept on the throat and their budding confidence put in perspective. Otherwise they become a real threat full of confidence for both SA and NZ. Argentina will once again struggle with attack with no experience of Super rugby. At home is their best chance of an upset against NZ and SA and their best chance is in the middle of the tournament.

by GloriousEmpire Tue 17 Dec 2013, 4:02 pm

Biltong wrote:Ah man to be able to understand your thought processes is a mystery to me.

Straw based argument?

SA conceded 111 penalties this year, received 11 yellow cards and one red card.
NZ conceded 145 penalties this year and received 7 yellow cards.
Oz conceded 170 penalties this year, received 8 yellow cards and one red card.

So SA got a card per 9.25 penalties
Oz got a card per 18.9 penalties
NZ got a card per 20.7 penalties.

Not everything can be related to PDV, and I was not talking of previous years, I specifically mentioned this year. As this was the year where we changed our style of play.

You are making the erroneous assumption that penalties and yellow cards should be correlated. The answer is simple. They're not.

You only need 1 penalty to get a yellow card. Your statistics don't show a picture whereby South Africa are the victims of some anti-Springbok conspiracy whereby referees have less tolerance for Springbok repeat offending as you are trying to make out; but merely that NZ and OZ apparently give away more soft penalties whereas South Africa seem to commit more out and out cynical offences worthy of cards. The axiom of your argument is flawed, because it starts with the erroneous premise that yellow cards are ONLY ever given for an accumulation of penalties. This is not the case. I don't see how that is so hard to understand.

The fact that you are writing off three years or more of Springbok underachievement as partially the consequence of a refereeing conspiracy is VERY VERY PDivvy, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

For example, let's use the BdP yellow and red cards. Ignoring for a minute that the first tackle should in no way have been a yellow card. BdP was not shown a yellow because of an accumulation of penalties, whether SA had conceded 12 penalties or no penalties he would have got the yellow for what the referee deemed to be a dangerous tackle. His subsequent yellow and hence red card were also not because of an accumulation of penalties but for a second dangerous tackle. The yellow was then converted to red because it was the second yellow cardable offence (in the referees eyes). The number of penalties that SA had conceded had no bearing (rightly so) on the referees decision.

The whole "cards per penalty" thing is just totally invalid. It was dreamed up by Bob Dwyer (I believe) as a convenient stick to beat referees with. It is utter without any merit whatsoever.

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:
Biltong wrote:Ah man to be able to understand your thought processes is a mystery to me.

Straw based argument?

SA conceded 111 penalties this year, received 11 yellow cards and one red card.
NZ conceded 145 penalties this year and received 7 yellow cards.
Oz conceded 170 penalties this year, received 8 yellow cards and one red card.

So SA got a card per 9.25 penalties
Oz got a card per 18.9 penalties
NZ got a card per 20.7 penalties.

Not everything can be related to PDV, and I was not talking of previous years, I specifically mentioned this year. As this was the year where we changed our style of play.

You are making the erroneous assumption that penalties and yellow cards should be correlated. The answer is simple. They're not.

You only need 1 penalty to get a yellow card. Your statistics don't show a picture whereby South Africa are the victims of some anti-Springbok conspiracy whereby referees have less tolerance for Springbok repeat offending as you are trying to make out; but merely that NZ and OZ apparently give away more soft penalties whereas South Africa seem to commit more out and out cynical offences worthy of cards. The axiom of your argument is flawed, because it starts with the erroneous premise that yellow cards are ONLY ever given for an accumulation of penalties. This is not the case. I don't see how that is so hard to understand.

The fact that you are writing off three years or more of Springbok underachievement as partially the consequence of a refereeing conspiracy is VERY VERY PDivvy, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

For example, let's use the BdP yellow and red cards. Ignoring for a minute that the first tackle should in no way have been a yellow card. BdP was not shown a yellow because of an accumulation of penalties, whether SA had conceded 12 penalties or no penalties he would have got the yellow for what the referee deemed to be a dangerous tackle. His subsequent yellow and hence red card were also not because of an accumulation of penalties but for a second dangerous tackle. The yellow was then converted to red because it was the second yellow cardable offence (in the referees eyes). The number of penalties that SA had conceded had no bearing (rightly so) on the referees decision.

The whole "cards per penalty" thing is just totally invalid. It was dreamed up by Bob Dwyer (I believe) as a convenient stick to beat referees with. It is utter without any merit whatsoever.

You are talking absolute rubbish.

Firstly the discussion was about how SA can improve and has absolutely nothing to do with any conspiracy theories.

I made the point in my initial statement that SA has more areas to improve upon and has more scope to improve than NZ.

My statement said that we need to improve our discipline in getting carded. Once again nothing to do with conspiracies or correlation to why we are getting carded.

It was a blanket statement about not being carded as much by improving discipline.

For the sake of creating controversy and the like you brought out conspiracy theories.

I did speak about the bounce of the ball which has to do with luck, and I said it is our turn.

Again nothing to do with conspiracy theories, teams have runs of where small bounces 50-50 calls run for them or against them.

The fact that SA have conceded less penalties but more cards speaks in itself to a Discipline issue, not a conspiracy issue.

You should stop looking for conspiracy theories in order to create controversy, none of it should or could have been read in my opening statement.

My statement had everything to do with two issues. How much I beleive we can still improve and conversely that Nz in my opinion can improve incrementally in comparison to SA due to them already being at the to of their game.

It is however evident that my suggestin that NZ has less room to improve has met with stern dissatisfaction from the New Zealand camp.

Apparently it is not acceptable suggest New Zealand has limitations.

As for Springbok under achievement, it has been documented by me ad nauseam over the past three years.

I doubt I need to repeat my thoughts on that.

by GloriousEmpire Tue 17 Dec 2013, 5:11 pm

You said:

"
My statement said that we need to improve our discipline in getting carded. Once again nothing to do with conspiracies or correlation to why we are getting carded."

You also said:

"So SA got a card per 9.25 penalties
Oz got a card per 18.9 penalties
NZ got a card per 20.7 penalties."

Now sorry, but that's unmistakably a correlation you're attempting to draw there, despite your claim that you're not.

You also said:

" we had the game to beat New Zealand,"

But this is contrary to the outcomes, which prove SA didn't, in fact "have the game to beat NZ". Which leads me to believe you were implying you would've won if not for some external factor beyond your control. Which again came up when you said:

"Lets just day the results went New Zealand's way, the record books will show NZ had the perfect year."

Your implication is that whilst "the record books" show NZ had a perfect year, in some other way, they didn't. You seem to be implying that NZ are flattered by the record books, and that SA are somehow hard done by due to that correlation between penalties and cards you keep pointing out.

When those two things are repeated in the same posts throughout the thread it creates a distinct implication that had SA not been on the raw end of a refereeing pineapple, then they would've beaten NZ.

If that's not what you're implying, then you might need to explicitly distance yourself from it. Because where I'm sitting, it's staring out between the lines.

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Dec 2013, 5:27 pm

I suggest you go back to the top of the thread and read attentively through every post.

That would be a starting point.

Then follow the conversation between kia, taylorman and myself and read in context my responses.

It might give you a clue.

by kiakahaaotearoa Tue 17 Dec 2013, 5:51 pm

Put it this way BB. SA looked to have improved in the backs this year on attack. Le Roux is a breath of fresh air. They may have been suspect on defence but I believe they were worse last year.

England, on the other hand, have had a lot of injuries but it's fair to say that their backline has been well below par. Now in terms of potential for improvement would you not say England has a lot more room for improvement than SA. The return of players like Tuilagi would help but it's one thing to say England have the most room for improvement and another to say that the English backline will be functioning better than SA's by the end of next year. Although i expect England's backline to be better I don't think they'll outperform SA in that regard. Why? Because I expect SA to improve as well. You can't improve on NZ's results but you can improve on performance. If room for improvement led directly to results the big SH would be overtaken in the rankings every time they went north.

by GloriousEmpire Tue 17 Dec 2013, 6:00 pm

Biltong wrote:I suggest you go back to the top of the thread and read attentively through every post.

That would be a starting point.

Then follow the conversation between kia, taylorman and myself and read in context my responses.

It might give you a clue.

I did BT. It seemed to be very similar to the endless "Wales will win" threads, with veiled claims of devalued wins, moral victories, what ifs and if only's and then unsubstantiated claims that SA are going to be unbeatable next year. With an uncomfortable undertone of persecution complex.

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Dec 2013, 6:00 pm

Kia, the lower a team is in performance the more room for improvement they have.

Obviously some nations ave a higher ceiling than others purely because of participation numbers and depth of players.

But that's just my opinion.

by **Biltong** Tue 17 Dec 2013, 6:01 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:
Biltong wrote:I suggest you go back to the top of the thread and read attentively through every post.

That would be a starting point.

Then follow the conversation between kia, taylorman and myself and read in context my responses.

It might give you a clue.

I did BT. It seemed to be very similar to the endless "Wales will win" threads, with veiled claims of devalued wins and what ifs and if only's and then unsubstantiated claims that SA are going to be unbeatable next year. With an uncomfortable undertone of persecution complex.

I am going to stop responding to you now as you are talking nonsense.

by Scratch Tue 17 Dec 2013, 6:03 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:
Biltong wrote:I suggest you go back to the top of the thread and read attentively through every post.

That would be a starting point.

Then follow the conversation between kia, taylorman and myself and read in context my responses.

It might give you a clue.

I did BT. It seemed to be very similar to the endless "~~Wales~~ NZ should have won" threads, with veiled claims of biased referees, colds, ebola, land mines and lack of respect

by GloriousEmpire Tue 17 Dec 2013, 6:04 pm

Biltong wrote:Kia, the lower a team is in performance the more room for improvement they have..

That's just not true. It may be that a teams low performance is the best they can do. It maybe that another world beating team can get 100% better. There's just no basis for your argument. You can't improve on a 100% record granted. But you can increase the gap between you and other teams. Tighter defence, improve attack, build depth. It just sounds like wishful thinking to me.

by Scratch Tue 17 Dec 2013, 6:07 pm

Biltong wrote:Kia, the lower a team is in performance the more room for improvement they have.

Obviously some nations ave a higher ceiling than others purely because of participation numbers and depth of players.

But that's just my opinion.

I disagree

In results terms a team lower down can be measured to have made more improvements if they get better results, but if you are at the top and maintain that then this does not mean your potential to increase performance is lesser than lower teams. It's just harder to measure it.

I agree about the ceiling though, some countries have historically taken players from other nations to artificially inflate their player pool.

For example, Wales with Shane Howarth.

by kiakahaaotearoa Tue 17 Dec 2013, 6:10 pm

I hear you on that. All I'm saying is that room for improvement does not mean significant improvement will be achieved.

by GloriousEmpire Tue 17 Dec 2013, 6:24 pm

I think the actual effect that you're seeing is that as NZ get better and better, it is exposing more and more comparative weaknesses in other teams; making it appear they have more room for improvement.

The more improvement it appears there is room for, the more you can be sure that NZ just opened the gap a bit further.

Objects in the rear view mirror, may appear larger than they are.

by Scratch Tue 17 Dec 2013, 6:55 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:I think the actual effect that you're seeing is that as NZ get better and better, it is exposing more and more comparative weaknesses in other teams; making it appear they have more room for improvement.

The more improvement it appears there is room for, the more you can be sure that NZ just opened the gap a bit further.

Objects in the rear view mirror, may appear larger than they are.

Congrats GE

There are 14 days left in 2013 and this is definitely the most one eyed post i have read on here.

NZ are perfect. The only way is down.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 17 Dec 2013, 6:59 pm

I didn't really see much improvement in NZ this year in comparison to last although granted I've not seen every game. They remain the best team in the world but as SA change their game and Aus come along with their new coach I don't think it's a leap into fantasy to suggest the Championship will be a more closely run affair next year.

by Taylorman Tue 17 Dec 2013, 7:31 pm

Scratch wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:I think the actual effect that you're seeing is that as NZ get better and better, it is exposing more and more comparative weaknesses in other teams; making it appear they have more room for improvement.

The more improvement it appears there is room for, the more you can be sure that NZ just opened the gap a bit further.

Objects in the rear view mirror, may appear larger than they are.

Congrats GE

There are 14 days left in 2013 and this is definitely the most one eyed post i have read on here.

NZ are perfect. The only way is down.

Funny, I don't see that as one eyed even though I do find others of GE's in that direction.

It must be assumed that if SA have made huge gains this year then so has NZ, as SA would have won at least one if NZ had stayed at pre 2013 levels. I doubt we would have won at Ellis against this Bok side prior to 2013.

The BP and DP episodes do not account for what NZ managed at both Eden Park and Ellis. NZ definitely stepped up in both games. They met and overcame an unbeaten and improving Bok side.

In staying at the top I believe the reverse is true- there is far more scope for improvement because for only this side there are no limits. The AB's consistently know what is required to stay ahead of EVERYONE...so they set the standards that no one is ever (so far) able to achieve.

I expect that to continue next year- why wouldn't it? We've heard for years about this gap between the ABs and the rest. Well, in 2013 it just got bigger than ever. Might be one eyed but if you can't look at whats in front of you with eyes wide open then that's too bad. It is what it is.

by kiakahaaotearoa Tue 17 Dec 2013, 7:35 pm

The Championship came down to the final match and SA got their 4 try bonus point. That's a pretty close run affair already I think!

If Australia improves its performances against either SA or NZ, it becomes less of a close run affair. It's very difficult to get a three horse race. Look at any 6N and it's very rare when there's more than two teams vying for top spot on the final weekend. It's unlikely all three teams say among Oz, NZ and SA get one win apiece. Usually it's going to be two teams vying for that top spot. Let's say France and Ireland significantly improve for the next 6N. Does this mean it'll be a four way contest among England, Wales, France and Ireland? Unlikely as if France and Ireland are to significantly improve, it's likely that England and Wales will suffer from that improvement and will slip down the ladder.

by GloriousEmpire Tue 17 Dec 2013, 7:55 pm

I get the feeling NZ are over the wall And away now. I don't take away from the incredible effort it took to get there. But with a stranglehold on every other team mentally, home and away, and nothing but depth underneath, I think this All Blacks team will be like Australian cricket in the 90's.

I can't honestly see NZ losing a game until circa 2018.

by Sponsored content