Form and Potential

We know on their day that any of the top 6-8 nations can beat anyone but do we sometimes mix up form and potential.

Ireland last year had two good games that some claimed as form and others saying it was them playing above themselves (potential)

England form is much better but Irish people were confident that they could beat them.

France's form is harder to call as they win most of their games outside the top 3 but can be awful. (That has changed this year)

Australia is often put into the same category as SA and Nz but is seen as the weakest of the three and are beaten more than the other two as shown by England and Ireland.

Wales are the best team in the NH but we always hear that they are playing to their best.

So apart from NZ I would say that people mix up Form and Potential.

How would you describe your team's form v potential?

For Ireland I would say we are a solid team that is even for about 70mins. For the 10mins we can fall apart and get killed. Our scrum does ok.
The Aus game is our potential

For Italy as no one will do them I would say their form is keeping it tight for 60mins but get undone by a quick off the cuff move. Their potential is the french game

We haven't played to potential since Nick Mallet.

See that is the thing. SA's form is they will beat everyone except NZ or a small loss to Aus, Eng, Fra, Ire, Wal

In maths you disallow the best and worse result so that would be Aus

We actually had a better record against NZ over the last 4 years than OZ.

NZ - 5 wins - 6 losses
Oz - 4 wins - 7 losses.

Biltong I think the Meyer era is starting in a very positive way for the Boks. NZ look beatable against Ireland and the Boks are missing players and blooding youngsters at the minute whilst still looking pretty strong. The 4Ns could be a successful time for you boys, maybe the Nick Mallet dreams will fade if you win it?

Yea, Sam our backrow will become much stronger whenthe injured return, as well as our locking combinations.

In the backline things are pretty much set at the moment until Goosen recovers.

To be fair you don't need to change a great deal in the lock positions. Kruger runs a good lineout and Etzbeth offers the required physicality, bringing a better and more experienced lock onto the bench would be my only change in that department. The backrow could do with a little fine tuning but it's good to see the Boks making the most of Alberts, just wish they hadn't started doing so until after this particular tour.

Seems a lot is being placed on Goosen's ability to step up to international rugby. He's a young guy, do you expect him to be in the 4Ns or will he be on a longer term progression similar to Ford (who is currently spending his days doing big conditioning sessions ready for more game time next year)?

I think SA will be right back up with NZ. They won't be bossed by anyone and they can turn a game with some nice moves just like NZ.

Bil do you think Mour will find his kicking boots again or will he be dropped. Who are you first opponents in the 4Ns

Sam, Goosen is out for the rest of this year, it is even unlikely that he will tour the Autumn internationals which would have been the best time to introduce him to international rugby.

Brendan I doubt Morne will be dropped, he has improved his gameplay during these two tests and that is what most felt was his downfall, if he can get to improve his running game, Meyer would want to keep him.

Meyer brought Morne into the Bulls setup, so has a high regard for him.

Form and potential are irrelevant I'm afraid. Results are what matter. Form and more so potential are usually mentioned when results don't go your way

Well Volvo will tell you form must always follow function.

Volvo or Viagra?

I don't think form matters much with viagra, mainly performance

Women would say potential doesn't matter but they never make good liars.

women who go for potential are desperate. and will soon leav as soon as achievement and ambition comes round the corner

Comes round the corner?! We're talking big potential there!

Actually I thought the 09 tri-nations is as good as you'll see the boks. They had the perfect strategy that year and were heads and shoulders above.

Only fatigue stopped them conquering all in the AI tour thereafter. It was so bad infact it hindered the following season for many players, notably Bakkies, Matfield & Du Preez.

Phew, good save fa0019

FA

EBOP

Yeah getting off topic here. Back to form and potential. Do you think all women are aware of shrinkage? I like swimming in the sea but sometimes the Atlantic is quite cold. As a grower not a shower I sometimes think we are underestimated based on current form and potential.

Jumping into Lake Rotoiti in summer isn't exactly tropical either Kia

It's still strange to me to read people writing "NZ looks beatable". The last unbeaten year we had was in 1997 and we only win 3/4 of our tests. Of course we are and it should go without saying.

In fairness though those comments usually come from supporters or teams that have never beaten or haven't beaten NZ in ages. You never hear SA say NZ look beatable. They usually save their talking for the field.

Potential seems to be a function of form.

Wales have oodles of potential, could have won the RWC and could win every game they play but their form is so flaming inconsistent that their potential to reach their potential is potentially impotent.

Form and potential? NZ 75.8%,SA 62.8%.Aus 56.4%,France 55 .5 %,England 55%.Wales 50 %.Thats the form guide over 106 years.SA 2009,3-0 against the ABs without a match fit McCaw until the 3rd match,No Carter for 2 of them,No Ali Williams[then arguably the worlds number 1 lock].A streaky Lions win after hiding all your players in the provincial games who were knocking the lions about.Then moaning about fatigue when you lose 4 matches on a European tour. 2009 was THE worst All Blacks year since 2004 in matches lost
with many key players injured.THE Boks over the whole year hard a worse record than them.Wales go on to win the RWC you HAVE to be joking there is no guarantee even with 15 men you`d have beaten France.

Of course not, no guarantee whatsoever that isn't really the point. Point is POTENTIAL....they could have beaten france and should have beaten them. Then as we know all bets are off in the final. They could have betaen NZ if they were in the final (on their day obviously). They had to put themselves in it and didn't because they choked against France after being rocked by the loss of SW and AJ and were beaten by an impressive display of anti rugby. They had just beaten them in the 6 Nations, they should have beaten them in the RWC, no question of that. They had the potential but not the form or the coronas.

Ultimately there is only speculation about potential when you don't reach it....i know this from my school reports.