Ellis Park. The ultimate ABs bogey ground.

Really looking forward to game tomorrow. It dont get much bigger than this for AB or SA fans.
Was somewhat surprised about what a stranglehold SA has had over ABs here.
ABs have a 37% win ratio. Or conversely SA have a 63% success rate since 1928.
3 wins for ABs in 11 games and one of those was in 1928!
On a personal note there are certain matches that stand out in my lifetme.

1. 1976. The first rugby tour of SA I can remember and i think the first with live coverage in NZ. AB loss 15-14.
Dont remember a whole lot about tour or game. Mainly that the grounds seemed like rock hard dust bowls (especially when compared with the muddy bogs I was playing on at the time as a child in dunedin!!) and why didnt Brian Williams or Sid Going not kick goals half as competently as Gerald Bosch!

2. 1992. The "Re-admission Game". AB win  27-24. Just to be playing SA again was almost unbelievable. It was a game that we AB fans thought may never come again. ABs fans saw it as the biggest compliment that SA wanted their first game to be against us at Ellis Park.
First time Id ever really seen a team affected by altitude. SA came back from 27-10 down to nearly win.

3. 1995. RWC Final. Cant/choose not to remember this game. I believe it ended in a certain amount of pain for me!

I could go on but....

I cant believe ABs havent played here since 2004.

Should be a cracker.
Lets hope game is remembered for all the right reasons.

I think Bloemfontain Kings Park is a bigger bogey ground for the AllBlacks.i`ll stand corrected on that.Last game between the two sides at Ellis park was 2004 I think Boks scored 40 points
winning 3Ns on Bonus points.

Yes thats right. They probably would have lost another since then if a match had been played there. The gap has widened considerably since then under the henry hansen eras.

Not sure why there havnt been any to be honest- youd thing they would be keen to hold them there of all venues.

The gap widened?

The gap widened in 2010 and 2011, with last year being competitive for 40 minutes and then blow outs.

Between 2004 and 2009 the record was Boks 7 wins, All Blacks 8 wins.

Guess it's all about the Benjamins-Soccer City holds 32000 more people. That's a helluva lot of rand.

Are other leading nations' records at Ellis as bad? Wouldn't be surprised if a team has a better record there than NZ-maybe a team like France where history is rendered completely irrelevant and they just play how they feel like it on the day!

Crap the only time I didn't wear my 2011 WC jersey was flying to the US and we got spanked by England. Forgot it again on a roadtrip BAD omen! Not a superstitious person generally but hell you gotta pull out all stops for these games!

England has the best record at Ellispark, but then they have only played there three times for one win.

Cheers Biltong. Not too much in it but would like England to play more games there to see if a consistent winning or losing trend develops.

Thought you'd be off to the game mate-aren't you around that area? If I had been able to get to SA earlier I'd have suggested a meet up.

Biltong wrote:The gap widened?

The gap widened in 2010 and 2011, with last year being competitive for 40 minutes and then blow outs.

Between 2004 and 2009 the record was Boks 7 wins, All Blacks 8 wins.

Im referring to the ABs in terms of losses in general compared to others. Then we were losing more regularly...now we are losing one or two a year at most. No one else is doing anything like that. Since 2010 the boks have lost 14 tests..the ABs 4. That is a significant difference between 1 and 2.

It's a one off game. Titanic and huge for bragging rights. But there are a few teams that can beat NZ on the day. The Boks are of course the most likely team do so especially at Joburg.

The All Blacks are miles ahead of anyone in terms of their winning consistency. That's it. But they like anyone can and do drop games. The thing with World Cups is it only takes one game and you're out of it. NZ win 3/4 of their tests. 7 games in a tournament. The maths indicates they're just as likely to drop one as the others-so in tournament play they become just another team.

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:The gap widened?

The gap widened in 2010 and 2011, with last year being competitive for 40 minutes and then blow outs.

Between 2004 and 2009 the record was Boks 7 wins, All Blacks 8 wins.

Im referring to the ABs in terms of losses in general compared to others. Then we were losing more regularly...now we are losing one or two a year at most. No one else is doing anything like that. Since 2010 the boks have lost 14 tests..the ABs 4. That is a significant difference between 1 and 2.

Understood, you meant overall.

disneychilly wrote:It's a one off game. Titanic and huge for bragging rights. But there are a few teams that can beat NZ on the day. The Boks are of course the most likely team do so especially at Joburg.

The All Blacks are miles ahead of anyone in terms of their winning consistency. That's it. But they like anyone can and do drop games. The thing with World Cups is it only takes one game and you're out of it. NZ win 3/4 of their tests. 7 games in a tournament. The maths indicates they're just as likely to drop one as the others-so in tournament play they become just another team.

That is why I would prefer the world cup format to change.

I would prefer the final eight teams to play every other team, hence seven in total.

that way a one off game doesn't take out a consistently performing team.

You end up with a log of 8 teams, and the top two teams get to play a final.

This way the best two teams get to the final, not the luckiest two.

Thats a league and not a cup, and the only teams that would have won RWC in the past would have been NZ and Eng

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:The gap widened?

The gap widened in 2010 and 2011, with last year being competitive for 40 minutes and then blow outs.

Between 2004 and 2009 the record was Boks 7 wins, All Blacks 8 wins.

Im referring to the ABs in terms of losses in general compared to others. Then we were losing more regularly...now we are losing one or two a year at most. No one else is doing anything like that. Since 2010 the boks have lost 14 tests..the ABs 4. That is a significant difference between 1 and 2.

Understood, you meant overall.

yeah and between 04 and 09 it was 12 AB losses to the boks 25 so part of its about having the game vs all comers.

In saying that 2013 the boks are getting AB type results with only one loss this year and for me thats reflected in their ability to play wider- another string to their bow is lifting their likelihood of winning matches' the point being that if SA continue with this each year we could be looking at more of these clash of the titans where the unbeaten sides meet like this year- now thats where we want to be.

mystiroakey wrote:Thats a league and not a cup, and the only teams that would have won RWC in the past would have been NZ and Eng

How do you figure that?

Yeah I'd say Aussie and SA would have fought it out in 99 that's for sure.

All Black Stats since return Tours for want of better terms 1992[1-0],1994[2,1,0]1996[2-1].
RWC [1-2],3N`s[25-12],4N`s[3-0] versus Boks to date.The Boks had there best period under
the reviled Peter De Villiers [5-6]including win at the "House of Pain 2008.

Biltong wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Thats a league and not a cup, and the only teams that would have won RWC in the past would have been NZ and Eng

How do you figure that?

Eng 2003

NZ the rest

Anyway- bar the clear minor wum posted by my self.

Cups are romantic.. We have to give others a chance..The league system wouldn't work on a spectator level. In Fact it could kill the international game. At the moment any team from 6 could realistically win the RWC, would us fans from england, france, wales and aus be so interested by it otherwise!

and  you end up with so many dead rubber games,

cheeky alright...99- let alone discussing the rest- was never going to be NZs no matter how many barnes or poison fish were there. I actually thought that was SAs best side of all world cups of those so far.

mystiroakey wrote:Anyway- bar the clear minor wum posted by my self.

Cups are romantic.. We have to give others a chance..The league system wouldn't work on a spectator level. In Fact it could kill the international game. At the moment any team from 6 could realistically win the RWC, would us fans from england, france, wales and aus be so interested by it otherwise!

and  you end up with so many dead rubber games,

yet the 6N and RC are leagues arent they? All play eachother and always dead rubbers, as are some pool matches at world cups.

World cups are different though dude.

I thin kits time to get more cups rather than hold on to the 4n's and 6's each year.

I think regional cups should be needed.

League systems in rugby do not do enough for lesser nations.. Less competition = less growth, more cups = more competition

mystiroakey wrote:

Biltong wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Thats a league and not a cup, and the only teams that would have won RWC in the past would have been NZ and Eng

How do you figure that?

Eng 2003

NZ the rest

South Africa are just a spittle behind New Zealand in world cup win percentage.

I would hazard a guess if you ad a league style World cup we would have featured very strongly.

Nah Biltong you guys are ahead. 2/5 beats 2/7. NZ and SA are good enough and consistent enough to be devastated with anything less than the trophy itself.

TM yeah the implication that 6N and 4N are dead rubbers and only the WC counts irks me too. Plus a few so called scribes are saying that NZ are 'yet to be tested against quality opposition'. If we lose one out of 22 games does that mean that everyone else bar England then is sh*t? Probably means that NZ choked in that game too. :facepalm:

Our and SA's consistency puts us in the best position for winning WCs. As we've all seen anything can happen there, but I can think of no better preparation for a WC than establishing a consistently winning team. So NZ will be at the races more than any other at least.

I'm with Chester Williams. Springboks by 3. Championship All Blacks. 

Then the real bitching about that yellow card can begin.

disney i am not sure what point you are making- but surely Bilt is talking about Wc game win percentage.

But there will never be a league style RWC- that would only push us back in time

Yeah Oakey I was too. We think of WCs-well I do-as trophies won out of tournaments played. NZ have 2/7 as do Australia. SA have 2/5. Hence they have a better record.

no you are talking about wc win percentage, he was talking about wc game win percentage.

The later is the better figure to work out who would be better in a leagie format

I was actually wrong. SA still ahead.

SA 86.2%
NZ 86.04%
AUS 80.48%
ENG 72.5%
FRA 70.93%
SCO 59.09%
IRE 56.66%
WAL 56.25%
ARG 50%

No it isnt mysti because once you lose you are out, so the stats are unbelievably skewed. Look at Wales who got to the SF but ultimately had a worse win/loss record than England who should've gone out at the pool stage and limped one more leg. 

The best indicator of league status would be world ranking.

GE i was talking about between the two stats.

think about the long game..

and yes wales wouldn't have got top 4 if it was a league format.

NZ are 88% by wiki
SA 86%
Aus 85%
Eng 73%


wher did you get those figures from bilt?

Oh and there is no 'still' ahead' because they played in less, its a better statistical win record, but there are actually also down on 1 final!!

Eng, SA, FRa and NZ have all had 3 finals each!! and SA had 2.

Not one other nation has even got to a final!!

Scrum.com

ok yep wiki is wrong by the looks of things- 86.04 to 86.2

we need a espn stat site for football. There stat quieres for cricket and rugby are brilliant!

Its nice to trundle out stats as I did to start this thread but....

The Boks would love to really give us (ABs) a workover tomorrow.

Its gonna be brutal.

Should be a lotta fun to watch.

A real Test Match!!

mystiroakey wrote:Oh and there is no 'still' ahead' because they played in less, its a better statistical win record, but there are actually also down on 1 final!!

Eng, SA, FRa and NZ have all had 3 finals each!! and SA had 2.

Not one other nation has even got to a final!!

Australia.

How could i forget them!! yes 3 finals as well.


Its a shame i can't watch the game tomorrow- Its going to be brutal!

Have I wandered into the Train spotters heaven?when we have a proper Knockout Cup instead
of the RWC Farce talk to me about it.A knockout Cup means NO seeds,NO groups,every team
on the same schedule.Teams drawn blind at each stage,every side fielding there best sides
every game.NOT a Draw 4 years before the event,every thing more or less cut and dried at
each stage.When you may draw the favourites or biggest outsiders at any stage,not be able
to manipulate groups doing just enough to qualify.Devalue other Tournaments by playing
weak teams,stop denigrating players or Teams because they haven't won a little Gold Pot
or had a Gold Medal stuck around there necks.The term World Champion and means just
THAT,you win a title and hold it until beaten.Be it the next Match or in 4 years time once
beaten THAT Team becomes World Champion.There rant over just about sums up why I
hate the RWC and all it stands for.Pomposity and Pretence,RWCs stuff it another series
of 4Ns and 6Ns titles will do me.

mystiroakey wrote:How could i forget them!! yes 3 finals as well.


Its a shame i can't watch the game tomorrow- Its going to be brutal!

Yes it will be brutal.

A real test!

We are lucky that as Australia has slipped in standards we have a genuine threat in SA. Argentina will get better but they only have an hour in their legs. We need these nerve wracking matches to give the new payers that feeling that they probably are going into this match as favourites and that performance levels must be raised.

Playing England 4 times is a challenge in that we must approach the games in November and June as must wins though consistency and execution have to be right to achieve that.

I saw a Kiwi posting on the roar who is going to the match. I wonder who's more nervous: him or the NZ team? I must say though I was might jealous. Argentina and SA would be great places to tour as a rugby fan. I will do it one day just as this RWC I will go to some games.

Must wins v england??

Thats a bit cocky dude.

I am also backing a saffa win tomorrow- I don't really even see you as favs

I see you both at even money for the win

Given  NZs record of losing to England once per decade they are definitely must wins.

England rarely play NZ, and england are at home. If england are must wins what are the other games they are playing supposed to be!! like v ireland?

I heard all that nonsense from them the night before the last england game GE.

Lol

Mysti,Boks at home anywhere bet Home win,especially on the Veldt Home win,tomorrow
whatever the Bookies say Home Win.The All Blacks have something like a 44% win rate
in SA[don`t know exact stats.England in November especially if they lose tomorrow and
last year.The "Blackness" will be out for Revenge,next year 3 matches with Nonu,Carter,
Conrad Smith all either on sabbaticals or France bound.England would seem to have there best chance.BUT NZ at home the stats is THE hardest place to win in on this Planet,8 sides
or so since 1996.Kaino back,SBW?that ones gone quiet .
Would be truly amazed if AB`s win tomorrow BUT lets hope theres no controversial stuff involved.

Well you shouldn't be amazed at the win. But it sounds like NZ just want 4 trys win or lose.. Is that correct?

Bookies are saying its a very even game as well. But the saffas are just class at the moment and at home..

The AllBlacks Mysti,as always will go for the win,but a win ,loss by seven or less,or just deny
the Boks 4 try`s.Will be enough for another 4Ns to go with the 10 or 11 3Ns wins can`t
remember just which.Weird thing about last year AB`s were better away,and Boks were
better away of course that was at sea level.
To be honest this year previous matches are just not a very good indication Argentina were
dreadful first match.But took the Boks to within one point,Australia looked relatively good
in the first two matches then have just lost it.Eden Park impossible to say probably AB win
to but certainly not a bonus point,indeed the Boks may have picked up a losing one there.
Planet Rugby reckons a 3 or 4 point Bok win myself thing it will be more but not 4 trys/. Still
it`s a strange old game and if any team can win it`s this AB side.All hype aside the AB`s have
dropped one match since start of RWC.It maybe should have been 4 but it didn't happen.
BUT if the AB`s should get an early 10 point or so lead that would mean the Boks having to
go up a gear.BOTH sides have that ability but the AB`s love to counter attack,would`nt
be at all surprised to see the Boks try to run them of there feet.Roles reversed that would be
the AB gameplan for the travelling side.

the diff is 5 points so the boks need 5 to win it- win and 4 tries would secure it on points differentiall for and against as the boks have 21 more care of a big home argie win.
If NZ lose and get either within 7 points or 4 tries they get a bonus point and go clear 1 point and win the title.
Interestingly, cant think of any scenarios where a last minute decision would provide the boks with a decision to go for either match or the title with the scoring of a penalty or try.

Off to Ellis Park.  Hope this game will live up to the hype we've created around it

mystiroakey wrote:Must wins v england??

Thats a bit cocky dude.

I am also backing a saffa win tomorrow- I don't really even see you as favs

I see you both at even money for the win

You can interpret it however you like. I see it as bouncing back from disappointment and having a ruthless edge. England have only had one game per year or two at most. Now there are four and England have a home RWC. They will have got a lot of confidence out of last year therefore they need their wind taken out of their sails. A big ask yes but if you don't have that ruthless streak about you you end up losing the games that are difficult and where you're probably not favourite or the task is a big one.