That didn't come as a surprise

It was set up. The Boks coming off a frustrating loss. Their game plan was criticised. People were predicting a comfortable margin for NZ. Well SA is not NZ's greatest rival for nothing.

The Springboks were simply immense on defence. Vermeulen was an absolute beast and my man of the match. Meyer obviously recognised that NZ commit few players to attacking rucks and he had men like Strauss, Habana, Vermeulen and Louw waiting there in the middle, using their strength to stand over the ball or come through the middle and get their hands on the ball.

Furthermore, Meyer had also identified NZ's go forward with their forwards running up and when a forward was taking it up with a forward to his side for an offload, SA put their big men and Eztebeth and Matfield were there waiting for the ball carrier to receive the ball and the player failed to get over the advantage line and phase play was shut down.

When NZ also got the ball out to the backs, the Boks were rushing up in midfield and NZ lost their composure. It was they who kicked far too much possession away today. Hendrick's got an up and under and looked very shaky against Savea. Instead of setting up to make those sorts of kicks again, we put in far too many lock kicks with no chasing. Dagg in the second half was especially guilty of that. Cruden's performance deteriorated rapidly as the match went on and Hansen did well to replace him. It was no coincidence that NZ's try came from intelligent kicking to unlock the Bok rush defence. Though Vermeulen was my man of the match, Read lifted his game from the last matches and the combination of his power and deft passing were brilliantly demonstrated. I'd like to see it again in real time but he took the ball, held it up and the great engine of McCaw runs round and Read offloads the perfect pass.

It wasn't just the ABs guilty of aimless kicking. SA fans have been calling for the dropping of Pienaar but I think he played much better than the man who came on to replace him: Hougaard. The problem is with Du Preez out, there are untried players who could be good but Meyer went for the young man Pollard and two inexperienced young players together would be asking too much in NZ. That said, Hougaard was awful and explains Meyer's reluctance to drop Pienaar. I can't fathom why a player renowned for his running game kicked so much attacking ball away. Le Roux, who had a game to forget largely, finally cut loose with Habana and SA were hot on attack. What does Hougaard do with acres of time and space: put in a nothing kick that hands possession back to NZ. I don't know if BB was watching the game secretly today but if he was watching he'll need to buy a new tv come Monday. It wasn't the only incident that Hougaard did this. Contrast that with Pollard who will be largely happy with his game and SA looked another team. Their try was beautifully constructed and Luatua, who is still evidently green at this level, was cruelly exposed on defence.

However, when the game was swinging back to SA in this see-saw battle, the set piece that had previously been imperious, started to come undone and noticeably at lineout time. I think the Bok scrum definitely seemed fix and was causing real problems at the end. I think NZ had underestimated the Bok scrum after largely measuring up to the Pumas scrum and I think they were made to look shaky a number of times during the match. But Strauss was finding his men and Matfield looked like the player of years gone by and the NZ lineout looked like the one of years gone by. When Du Plessis came on, it all started to crumble. Which makes JDV's decision to go for the try near the end with 8 minutes remaining a difficult one to support. Sure a penalty would've seen them still trailing but they were on a roll and Pollard's drop goal was definitely an option with enough time on the clock. Instead of getting that three points there and then, they soaked up the remaining time trying to get the winning score. Some might argue that this was a bold call and hindsight is all well and good but I don't think JDV will wake up tomorrow feeling he made the right choice.

Nonu's injury was a loss but what a player to have in the team Ben Smith. He just beats the first player with ease and then he usually beats some more. Normally losing a centre pairing with no specialist cover would be a big blow but he seemed to slot in perfectly and just turned up everywhere. I like what he offers at fullback and I think Dagg should look at his kicking game tonight but my eyes seemed to light up with Ben Smith at 12. I think there is the danger of him becoming a JOC, Beale type player so I hope the temptation to move him around is resisted. Quite frankly, he needs to be out on the field but I think we shouldn't keep shifting him around though no doubt there will be a call for him to be looked at in the number 12 jersey.

It was refreshing to see a game between these two teams with no one in the bin. I think the ref missed a few things on both sides but the important thing was he was consistent and he didn't do anything rash or make a decision that decided the outcome of the game. So in that respect, credit must be given to him for that as it was becoming rather ugly to see these yellow cards handed out like jellybeans in previous matches.

To the SA supporters, you will feel this was the one that slipped away and rightly so. You played well enough to win tonight and costly errors in judgement probably proved the difference. There was a lot less kicking and there were smart tactics largely in that Bok team and they outwitted NZ to a large extent this match. It was a much better effort from last week and they must go back now to SA with the mindset they have to win their remaining 2 games at home.

To NZ supporters, we were engaged in a real epic battle tonight. We were pressured into making mistakes and we didn't adjust well to how SA were confronting us on defence. Instead of kicking the ball away, we needed to run better lines and we needed to have our forwards coming up looking like they were going to offload only to turn it back to a player coming in on a line away from the opposite angle. Cruden missed touch and then botched a restart. Those kinds of mistakes occur when pressure is applied to your team on the scoreboard. 36 matches unbeaten at home and the amazing sequence continues but that record looked shaky for all of the match and looked more likely than the first test against England earlier this year. Kudos to SA (and England) for making that happen but also credit to NZ holding on when it mattered. That takes ticker and they didn't fold under the pressure.

A real intense, enthralling match. It wasn't pretty but it was well conceived by SA and they dominated NZ in large periods of the game. These are the types of matches that are typical in the knockout phases of the RWC so both sides will be looking back on what they did well and where they needed to improve. kia kaha

What did come as a surprise is that Nonu played with a broken arm after breaking it in the 8th minute.

Ben Smith slotted in amazingly well but Hansen is thankfully putting that in the rainy day cupboard and is not seriously entertaining the idea of putting him there with Nonu out for 2014 and Crotty still not recovered.

Actually, I misread that. Looks like Nonu played on for 10 minutes or so with a broken arm and made half time. Great gesture by him when he was taken to Wellington hospital, he instructed for his jersey to be sent to the Bokke dressing room for JDV's centurion test.

Looks like Crotty, Kaino, Messam, Whitelock and Vito will be back for the final two games. Dane Coles will be out for the SA test as his wife is due to give birth so he'll be a big loss but that is tempered by the other players coming back. Thrush had a good game and should move ahead of Bird, Tuipulotu and Romano in the pecking order with Romano being out for so long.

So SA pitched up and still lost, nothing new then.

I think Meyer did his homework BB. The Boks did a number on us in many facets of the game. His decision not to drop Pienaar was vindicated by yesterday's match and the fact he chose Pollard over Steyn prevented him from picking another young rookie halfback in combination with him. SA will be frustrated they lost but they're not the only side to feel that in recent times having played NZ. It was a step back in the right direction after the disappointing matches against Argentina and Australia.

It's hard to say either side dominated to be honest. The two pretty much played bloody well and cancelled each other out. There were errors from both sides but they came from the pressure both sides put on defensively. Each side had the upper hand at times but not by much and NZ would have been just as disappointed to have lost as both sides had chances.

Our mate Jones is back to his old tricks today. Was a poor game apparently and of course NZ are shoo ins to stuff up next year because RWCs are the only time refs stand up to NZ bullying.

Biltong what did you think of your other loosies? Seemed to me Vermeulen was MOTM but the other two got through a power of unseen work which stopped NZ from getting a platform and deserve a lot of kudos themselves.

Him and Chris Rattue in a celebrity death match would be nice. Though celebrity is a strong word to use.

And the big Q: How many AB fans are going for the Cowboys to send the Roosters packing in the NRL so a certain 12 comes straight back in? (not serious of course I'd want him to play a couple of ITM Cup games)

Didn't watch the game mate, I have decided ro take a break from the Boks. They have been poor all year and Meyer with his selections and kicking game has frustrated me to the point where I need to break my obsession over the Boks.

We have Crotty coming back dc and Fekitoa with more game time is not a bad thing. No rush for SBW.

Thank God the Times has a pay-subscription. Don't need to bother with that clueless dimwit anymore.

Totally predictable Boks versus NZ always an arm wrestle and as predicted it was wet.
AB`s setpiece notably suffered with loss of the key lineout jumper the combinations
just were`nt there.

The backline disrupted by Nonu`s exit and Crudon not totally match fit,the cavalry
are coming Crotty,Kaino,Messam.Vito,Whitelock,and Carter[3rd Bledisloe]

A bonus point win versus Argentina and a losing bonus point v Boks at Ellis Park
would mean another RC.

In theory all 3 SH sides could achieve 20pts if SA or AUS get two 5 point wins.
Boks on the Veldt never easy but a near full strength side on a dry track
NZ may yet achieve a unbeaten RC.

DC I read some of Jones' comments through stuff this morning. He labelled the Wellington test as "a mediocre game" and believed hope remained for England and the Springboks, listing them alongside the All Blacks, as his "big three" for the World Cup. ''Even top international referees find it impossible to get past their aura and yesterday, against South Africa, they had every refereeing break going - as ever.

"The World Cup tends to be a more level playing field, the All Blacks are just another team and bullying stands out more.

"They tend not to get every refereeing concession, and the shock can often stupefy the team and the whole nation.

"South Africa and England are favoured as the next best bets, partly because they are the two nations on Earth not in awe of New Zealand."

Jones argued that the All Blacks' preoccupation with their remarkable unbeaten runs both at home and on the road, left them vulnerable in terms of long-term planning.

"The good news for the two hopefuls is that New Zealand, superb though they can be, appear to be flat out, defending their proud unbeaten record.

''Their team is all but settled, so in a year's time the analysts will know everything there is to know about the All Blacks, down to the cut of their toenails. Yesterday, the South Africans had them worked out.

"Whether that can stop flashes of genius from the likes of Ben Smith, Julian Savea and Kieran Read is a different matter, but there will be no mystery about them.

"Teams will know that they cannot afford to turn over any ball to New Zealand, and that their own kicking game must be immaculate. If these aspects are in place, New Zealand are eminently beatable next year."

I actually agree on some of the points he makes but it's the whole tone of the piece that winds me up even though I realise I'm not the target audience. For example, Saturday's game was not pretty but you can be sure if that were England and Ireland playing, he would've wrote 'that was a real test match and how test matches should be played. Uncompromising defence and none of the silly basketball nonsense served up in the SH.

I did think that SA had indeed worked out the NZ gameplan but to say NZ got the rub of the green of all the ref's decisions is ludicrous. For example when you see the toe-through that led to Le Roux outpacing Aaron Smith, Bryan Habana was resting one leg on the tackled player to wrestle the ball away. There are many things that escape the ref on both sides but saying NZ get found out by the ref in RWC games is doing a disservice to teams who have managed to beat them in RWC games. Moreover, SA did their homework and nullified NZ's game but still found themselves on the losing side.

The team is settled point makes no sense. That's what Woodward was lauded for doing leading up to 2003 but when NZ do it, it's giving their game plan away. I agree Hansen likes continuity but when you look at how many players have been introduced since 2011, it makes no sense. And is he seriously claiming the other teams' game plans are shrouded in mystery and we don't know what they're doing. I guess only France qualifies in that respect because I'm not sure even they know what they're doing.

I shouldn't bite as we have clowns who are just as bad. Of course many of those 36 games at home could've gone either way and the NZ team is eminently beatable. But so are other teams you great k nob of butter. I think there's a part of me who actually misses sitting down on a Sunday eating a late breakfast in Marylebone (still no idea how you prnounce that) and choking on my French pastries and tartines wishing I could come face to face with that ... But then I realise I'm a better off not having to deal with his nonsense. And yet...

I used to live in Marylebone too kia (I think its Mar-le-bone not mary-le bone), whereabouts were you?

On the match, as a neutral I enjoyed it, but for me NZ will be annoyed they didn't win by more. The SA defence was very good indeed but they were barely in the Kiwi half from about 40-70 minutes! I think any other team in the world would have conceded under that pressure so kudos to the defence coach.

On Vermulen, its interesting that if people talk about the top world number 8's Read is normally out way in front, maybe with Parisse getting a few plaudits too, but I don't think I've seen Vermulen have a bad game ever.

The former is how I pronounced it, but I've heard other variations. I lived parallel with Marylebone High St and it's been a while but I think Gloucester St was the street but that could've been my flat in Christchurch. It was near the Wallace museum in any event.

I think both sides will feel they left points out on the pitch but certainly NZ with the possession they had should've created a cushion. They were definitely rattled by the physicality of the Boks and I thought they did a number on us in terms of the game plan which often is the other way round.

If Vermeulen can temper his aggression and obviouslly that helps if the ref doesn't ping him for legitimate tackles, he is a real handful. We have that a bit with Kaino but Vermeulen is a step up and is a different player to Read. He couldn't do what Read did in the lead up to the NZ try but although Read can make great spot tackles, he doesn't have anywhere near the physical presence of Vermeulen. Great player but in different ways.

Oh Kia I think you're very much part of Jones' target audience. "Like shooting fish in a barrel" was his response about winding Kiwis up. One bell end's opinions aren't that much but his target audience is huge and I've read too much tripe from ignorant fools who spout the same claptrap he does to think that he doesn't influence readers, which is a sad indictment.

I can't believe he was claiming NZ was obsessed with maintaining their streak at the expense of planning for the WC. Jaysus-EVERY test is huge for NZ. If we'd won 30 in a row or lost 30 in a row, the focus would and should be the same.

He also wrote I think that England only lost by a lack of composure and experience-no mention of NZ actually being a better side. That's Woodward like sour grapes. NZ win because they can stay with teams and ride out rough patches, and go into a gear that noone can live with.

There is no mystery about any team due to the analyses you can undertake now with video. But if there were none about NZ, just how predictable are England? Just the French mentality as you alluded to before would be the red herring. I agree about Woodcock creaking but McCaw's stats are still right up there and he was great again on Sat.

Every team is beatable. Which is why NZ's achievement should be lauded.

Vermeulen is very different to Read Bathman but was magnificent on Sat. Was just imagining a backrow with him at 6 and Read at 8...That's SA and NZ in a nutshell though. Both complete players, Vermeulen has a small edge in his power and Read has a small edge in his skill.

It was Manchester St Bathman. In Christchurch that was where ladies of the night used to frequent!

No, he's very different to a Mark Reason journo dc. They both wind up Kiwis no end and there is some truth to what they say but neither has any deep knowledge of rugby. But what Jones writes is often parrotted by some of the UK readers: poaching, cheating, ref influencing yada yadas. He's undoubtedly well aware his articles get fed second-hand to NZ readers but much like that Sky pundit whose name eludes me, his primary aim is to discredit teams ranked above England and get the conversation turned to England. It happens everywhere - look at the Aussie commentary and the way they describe McCaw - and NZ is no different with many muppets chest beating NZ's exploits and downplaying other's achievements. It's when I hear these things repeated as fact by rugby fans is where I find it very frustrating.

I know it (not the Christchurch one!), I used to live off Crawford street, so just around the corner. In fact I still work about 5 minutes south of there, just past the Wallace. Small world!

Read and Vermeulen in the same backrow... If there could be a fit again and back to his best Pocock in there too, we could be on to a winner!

On journalists, I often find myself questioning if we have watched the same match as some pundits, its the same all over the world.

Meyer's record is 0-5 vs. the ABs

I think that is the worst record in memory.

and who is going to bet it won't be 0-6 come the end of the series?

Don't know about that FA-the game was far too close to assume a NZ win. At the ground that they've found the hardest to win-I'd say the Boks are favourites.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:It was Manchester St Bathman. In Christchurch that was where ladies of the night used to frequent!

No, he's very different to a Mark Reason journo dc. They both wind up Kiwis no end and there is some truth to what they say but neither has any deep knowledge of rugby. But what Jones writes is often parrotted by some of the UK readers: poaching, cheating, ref influencing yada yadas. He's undoubtedly well aware his articles get fed second-hand to NZ readers but much like that Sky pundit whose name eludes me, his primary aim is to discredit teams ranked above England and get the conversation turned to England. It happens everywhere - look at the Aussie commentary and the way they describe McCaw - and NZ is no different with many muppets chest beating NZ's exploits and downplaying other's achievements. It's when I hear these things repeated as fact by rugby fans is where I find it very frustrating.

Stephen Jones we're talking about? He takes every opportunity to bash England normally as well! He's spent that last 5 years in love with Warren Gatland and Wales despite them having a similar to slightly worse win ration than England over the period. I was surprised he mentioned England as one fo the favourties to be honest albeit because they're playing at home!

Depends on the time of year. If it's 6N then I take your point. If it's the SH international season or Autumn Internationals then it's England this and England that in comparison to the SH teams.

I'd still say he prefers Wales. Seems preoccupied with the big bruisers though. He does seem to get a bee in his bonnet about certain teams or people and won't be swayed though.

I think to compare Vermeulen and Read is futile. They are different players.

Read is more effective in the open as he has more pace than Vermeulen, but Vermeulen is more physical and enjoys the traffic. He is the best 8 in the world at the breakdown.

Read is more atheltic and gets the opportunity to display other skills Vremeulen rarely gets the opportunity to do, simply because the two teams play different games.

vermeulen does have skills, just look at his offload to Habana at Ellispark last year, they are just few and far between.

Read plays out wide often on attack, something Vermeulen never does

Regarding Jones' article:

I don't think the ref showed any bias. As a Bok supporter, I can't really think of any unfair calls.

I do think that in general the Boks had the AB's game plan figured out, however: the boks inability to execute their game plan (missing four line-outs in a row in the last 15 mins), some stupid decision making (Hougaard kicking away prime counter attacking ball), combined with some sublime individual skills from certain ABs (McCaw's try was epic, from the pinpoint kick, to Read's take etc) resulted in theBoks not pressing home their tactical advantage.

I didn't think it was a boring game at all (but then I was invested in it)...

People don`t get it do they ?this is SA v NZ top 2 sides in the World,Meyer like nearly every
team in the World bar one is thinking about the RWC.

Nz on the other hand it is one game at a time so far this season NZ like all the SH sides has
had to cope with injuries.Saturday was the same to lose two key forwards plus there backups
was always going to effect things.

So he`s lost some games how many teams have beaten the ABs since 2011 ONE protecting
there record RUBBISH.38 losses at home in 111 years versus allcomers THATS the AB`s record.

Hansen just wanted the squad players available to adjust enough to win the game and
another RC if they beat Argentina.SA came to shut down NZ which they did but created
little in the process.

Stephen Jones when has he ever had a good word for a NZ Match?Video analysts work
out every ones style.You think SA will get away with the same game plan at Ellis Park?

SA at home on the veldt always favourites against anyone BUT injuries permitting a
pack with Whitelock and Messam/Kaino back should go better at setpiece/breakdown etc.
Crotty /Ben Smith/Tom Taylor or in extremis Dan Carter at 12 with even Slade at 10
a proven combination.

It may be significant the best game for AB`s to date in the RC was on a dry track
IF they get parity forward there backs can do the job in joburg.

Don't even like the thought of 38 losses Alan...sounds too many to me...AB's ...38 losses?,... AB's......38! losses......nah, cant get used to that...