Have the All Blacks become sore losers...

First topic message reminder :

All this whinging, about the referee, just accept it, you had to lose sometime...

Take heart from being the side that everyone in the world wants to beat, and take it on the chin when you are beaten ... as it is inevitable now and again...

BUT ... and that's a big BUT don't forget that on November 22nd its Wales's turn to beat you.

We've run you close so many times in recent years, but as part of the Cymru/Kiwi participation agreement of 2008 (and the predated one of 1998-2004) we agreed to train your up and coming international coaches in the best rugby tournament in the world (6 Nations for those who didn't know), and then during any test match between Wales and New Zealand, we agreed to let you look good by keeping with you for 60-65 mins and letting you riot in the last 20 or so, with you giving us the occasional thumping from the start to avoid any loss of All Black moral. However, the Cymru/Kiwi participation agreement (of 2008) is due for renegotiation this Autumn, with the first modification to this agreement being Wales's turn to win the November 2014 test.

So guys, just remember this and don't be a sore loser when we beat you on 22nd November 2014... a day to go down in history with 16th December 1905, 21st December 1935 and 19th December 1953.


Dont forget All Blacks... Its WALES turn next... We'll still be on your side on the 8th when you play England 

Fao my two cents for what it is worth RWCs for some reason bookies make AB`s favourites
every time.1991 Australia were on the upswing NZ an aging team one year to many.
1999 Australia were the form team at least until 2001 BUT yes that was complanency.
2003 Australia again with England would have been favourites Mitchell`s side was forward
light by there best standards,and Spencer just as likely to lose as win it.

Which brings us to 1995 such was the spirit in SA in that year NO other team was going to win it.That the Viral Infection or what ever affected the AB`s preperations cannot be doubted
mitigation?how do you mitigate for a whole squad?changing the odd player won`t change that.

Of course if both sides were fully fit /prepared result/tactics would be different but that's
in the land of what if`s.That they went to the last minute of extratime was a credit to them
Merth`s drop goal attempt missed,Stransky`s did`nt.

As to teams and years NZ played 1992[w] away ,1994 [2w.1d]home,1995 [L],1996 [4 w 1 L]
1 home,4 away,1997 [w2] home and away.

It was SA `s boast that Lomu never scored against them but the hole created allowed
Cullen and Wilson to.

In my opinion for what it is worth the 1995 AB side WAS better than SA.[just] outside of a
RWC anywhere but on the veldt.AB win in Sa on the veldt probably SA.

For the record SA thoroughly deserved that RWC because in my opinion they had a rough time.Several losses getting back up to speed post 1992.

NZ are always considered as favourites due to their all-time record and not their form just before a World Cup. So a lot of people overlook that.

The "mitigate the virus" argument is a nonsense. By selecting 7 of 15 non first starters you would expect the lose the rwc final - especially when the other 8 are admittedly poisoned/"unfortunately coincidentally unwell".

NZ were not bookies favourites for all world cups. Not in 1987,1991 or 2003. That leaves the poisoning incident in 1995, the Wayne Barnes episode in 2007 and the bloody bloody French in 1999. The only time when NZ were bookies favourites and actual rugby skills let them down was 1999...that was all about selectiorial lunacy, and a forward pack who lacked street skills.

You get more whingy with each regeneration. Suck it up big guy.

There are sore losers everywhere. I'm one of them sometimes.

Nah Richard. 99 we weren't good enough and would have gotten dorked by Aussie in the final had we not capitulated. They'd just given us our heaviest ever defeat months earlier. I agree that 3/4 of the most dangerous back four ever were picked out of position but the pack had a soft underbelly and teams exploited it.

Richard wrote:The "mitigate the virus" argument is a nonsense. By selecting 7 of 15 non first starters you would expect the lose the rwc final - especially when the other 8 are admittedly poisoned/"unfortunately coincidentally unwell".

NZ were not bookies favourites for all world cups. Not in 1987,1991 or 2003. That leaves the poisoning incident in 1995, the Wayne Barnes episode in 2007 and the bloody bloody French in 1999.  The only time when NZ were bookies favourites and actual rugby skills let them down was 1999...that was all about selectiorial lunacy, and a forward pack who lacked street skills.

So you think that playing an ill player would give you a greater chance of victory than playing a 100% healthy and fit player? Loco

If I had say 3 fit and healthy players who could slot in easily into a side and 3 chaps in a 15 which were not well I would do a swap no end.
Its not like the NZ bench was poor in that world cup either.

You can swap 3 with any number you like, in difficult circumstances you make decisions which are necessary. That's the job of a coach. Henry would have done it, SCW would have done it... that's why they have world cup winners medals, they were ruthless and if it meant alienating a player, a coach, a board member... they'd do it.

In essence if it was as bad as people say then the coach screwed up. Blame him not the illness or Suzi. If not... then obviously the illness was not as bad as people make out. Had the coach made the decision and NZ lost at least you could say look, we were in a difficult situation and we tried to give ourselves the greatest chance of victory.

Its not like you would have certainly have won anyhow..... SA were very strong, at home , had a great defence and a huge pack. Even if NZ weren't 100% fit I still would think SA would shade it.

Its always something though. NZ have only lost a handful of times yet near every time there is a reason outside of a rugby point of view... it was the ref, the tmo, the food, the injuries, the strip. Never is it.... damn, the opposition were better than us today.

Lets just widen this shall we?is ANY TEAM a good loser in a match or RWC to ALL the fans.According to memory England were robbed by the Ref 1991,and 2007 RWC Finals.
France 1995 Semi and 2011 Final[at least NZ didn't]give Joubert a gold watch].
NZ 2007 plus of course Suzi 1995.Boks qtr final 2011 v Australia.

The All Blacks have NEVER won a RWC,1987 because the Boks weren't there and were
at home.Joubert was bought 2011 because AB`s were at home.

When whoever wins 2015 it will be  told you so ,and chokers and so on.
NZ didn't win in NZ 2013 because of the Bismarck red card,despite finishing the game
with 13 men.Did`nt win at Ellis Park 2013 because Boks needed a bonus point,did`nt win in wellington
because etc.

I can remember when the Boks were THE best in the World just I was 6 can you ?when
home advantage mean`t Series Wins for many reasons.

That THE best 5 sides I`ve seen were NZ 1963-4,1995-7,for results this one is close.
Lions 1959,1974,Boks 1960-2.England 2000-4.

BUT I can and do admit and congratulate winning teams too and accept on there day they
were the best.Recently on the day SA 1995 RWC,2009 versus AB`s 3Ns,they were decidedly
lucky versus Lions that year could have gone either way.England 2012,SA 2014.

The All Blacks have always been sore losers. That's why they generally don't.

Few teams do losing well I give you that... but some teams do it with less grace than others.

You mean they make excuses like being too tired, too rusty, or "building" and "taking the positives" whilst remaining "immensely proud" and pondering how much they would've won by if not for injury to Player X?

Richard wrote:You mean they make excuses like being too tired, too rusty, or "building" and "taking the positives" whilst remaining "immensely proud" and pondering how much they would've won by if not for injury to Player X?

They don't blame the colour of their shirts, dodgy refs, last nights KFC and allude to anything bar the simple fact the opposition were better on the day. Want to learn about this type of player/team... Watch JDV.

fa0019 wrote:

Richard wrote:The "mitigate the virus" argument is a nonsense. By selecting 7 of 15 non first starters you would expect the lose the rwc final - especially when the other 8 are admittedly poisoned/"unfortunately coincidentally unwell".

NZ were not bookies favourites for all world cups. Not in 1987,1991 or 2003. That leaves the poisoning incident in 1995, the Wayne Barnes episode in 2007 and the bloody bloody French in 1999.  The only time when NZ were bookies favourites and actual rugby skills let them down was 1999...that was all about selectiorial lunacy, and a forward pack who lacked street skills.

So you think that playing an ill player would give you a greater chance of victory than playing a 100% healthy and fit player? Loco

If I had say 3 fit and healthy players who could slot in easily into a side and 3 chaps in a 15 which were not well I would do a swap no end.
Its not like the NZ bench was poor in that world cup either.

You can swap 3 with any number you like, in difficult circumstances you make decisions which are necessary. That's the job of a coach. Henry would have done it, SCW would have done it... that's why they have world cup winners medals, they were ruthless and if it meant alienating a player, a coach, a board member... they'd do it.

In essence if it was as bad as people say then the coach screwed up. Blame him not the illness or Suzi. If not... then obviously the illness was not as bad as people make out. Had the coach made the decision and NZ lost at least you could say look, we were in a difficult situation and we tried to give ourselves the greatest chance of victory.

Its not like you would have certainly have won anyhow..... SA were very strong, at home , had a great defence and a huge pack. Even if NZ weren't 100% fit I still would think SA would shade it.

Its always something though. NZ have only lost a handful of times yet near every time there is a reason outside of a rugby point of view... it was the ref, the tmo, the food, the injuries, the strip. Never is it.... damn, the opposition were better than us today.

You keep missing the point Fa. You keep looking for fault, hindsight. The point we make is there is strong evidence if not for the illness the AB's would have won the cup. Evidence that is unique of all world cup matches or finals. Having either ill players or lesser players means thats not the case. We lost, and the evidence strongly suggests the illness meant the ABs did not put out 100% of the side they could have, nor could they prepare 100% prior to it as they were most all in the doc's room throwing up. Even you must agree than is not how you would prepare for a final. And if they had been at 100%, they likely would have won, purely on the basis that a less than 100% prepared and potenial on field side stayed in touch until extra time.

If you cant understand that logic then you are not opening both eyes. If SA were exactly in the same position vs the AB's I would certainly accept that Habana spewing on the sideline suggests that we probably got a little lucky due to the illness. I've not seen ONE Bok supporter even suggest that might be the case.

And yes its a handful of losses and theyre usually always upsets, so naturally any side (with any brains) will look for reasons they lost...because they actually should have won.

You call it excuses, we call it reasons. The definition is purely based on which side of the fence you sit on.

In the same way you might call our view arrogant, we would say you are envious.

Absolute tosh. Sport doesn t deal in certainties.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Absolute tosh. Sport doesn t deal in certainties.

ooh...another struck by the little green man. Its a view. Like any other.

I think we need to consider why no other sides get "sick" with the same frequency as NZ.

Taylorman wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Absolute tosh. Sport doesn t deal in certainties.

ooh...another struck by the little green man. Its a view. Like any other.

No its complete bias you may have won but its by no means a certainty. You may have been beaten by more.

Cyril wrote:I think we need to consider why no other sides get "sick" with the same frequency as NZ.

Possibly they're not in so many World Cup finals...

Richard wrote:

Cyril wrote:I think we need to consider why no other sides get "sick" with the same frequency as NZ.

Possibly they're not in so many World Cup finals...

Aussies, England and France have been in the same number of finals but never hand in a sicknote. It must be something else.

How many politically significant finals have they been in? Zero. NZ? One. How many times have they been "coincidentally sick". Once.

Ah - maybe this correlation hints to causation, then.

No I dont think so Dick. Maybe better hand washing is needed?

Was it somehow politically significant when NZ got a shellacking in England a couple of years ago?

It's good to get this insight from you ghostie

"There were 36 of us in the tour party altogether. And out of the 36, I think 30 or 31 went down or were sick at some time.

"I myself was crook and I don't normally get very crook.

"The Thursday I went down ate and at about 3am, got the doctor, got out of bed, got to the toilet and crouched on the floor. It knocked me around."

The first All Black fans back home knew of the debilitating food poisoning which had ripped through the team was during coverage of the final.

As the match wore on All Black stars started succumbing to the illness.

Haunting images were broadcast of star wing Jeff Wilson buckled over on the sideline vomiting after being replaced.

Meads said in hindsight the decision to keep things quiet was the wrong one to make.

"It was my call," he said.

"We had a meeting on the Friday morning in my room and I said, 'We don't tell anyone. Tell the players not to tell anyone back home'.

"We didn't want anyone to know we were crook. We didn't want South Africa knowing that we were crook.

"And that is one that I regret. We should have let people know."

Painful memories last more than a decade on

Thirteen years on and the nature of the All Blacks' downfall in South Africa is still a painful one for Meads to recall.

The fact that the Springboks' eventual triumph helped bring some much-needed joy to the divided nation is minor solace for those involved in the All Black campaign.

Time has healed some wounds.

But Meads said memories of what happened behind closed doors in the All Black camp will forever stay with him.

"It was devastating for the players," he said.

"Some were worse than others, it affected everyone different. Some got over it, some were still doubtful whether they were going to be playing."

More pain was to follow at the official after-match function.

"We arrived there and I made sure we all went in our tuxedo suits and had a hell of a fight with the players, some of them weren't going to wear them," Meads said.

"We were late getting there by say quarter of an hour, 20 minutes. But bloody hell we waited there for a good hour and a half, two hours before the Springboks shacked up."

Then the All Blacks had to endure a speech from then South African rugby supremo Louis Luyt where he labelled the New Zealand media boorish.

He then said the Springboks would have won the previous two World Cups, including the 1987 tournament the All Blacks won, had they been allowed to play.

"Players were coming up asking me, 'Can I go and talk to that Tinkywinky?'. I wasn't in the right mood and said, 'Yeah, go for it'.

"As a manager I shouldn't have (said that). Two or three of them went and spoke of him and told him what they thought of him."



Pretty sour all round.

Taylorman

I respect your view, it's not mine but I don't simply think, ah you came close in the actual match and apparently weren't 100% so if you were you would have been better which obviously equates to victory... I don't buy it. I would say simply that it would have produced a different game. Throughout the tournament your entire game was built around lomu, to score and give you line breaks and frontfoot ball... SA stopped him and stopped him throughout his career. Was he sick for the other 11 matches where he also failed to score???

NZ had a system , the boks trumped it and they had no answer to the rush defence and dominant pack.

Sometimes teams make changes right up to the warm up, sure it will knock the side a little but teams adapt to the developments. But you make them if necessary, that's coaching.

Donald was the 53rd choice pivot in 2011 and was on a fishing holiday no when he was called in? Had zero time with the team but his name will be the one to go down in the history books. You adapt and you make the calls which are necessary. Henry didn't rate him at all, but he made the call he knew he had to.

I am surprised the AB's and Boks still have respect for one another going by this thread

Nah, nothing to do with the springboks or their supporters.

It could be coincidence - by Occam's razor suggests otherwise.

Rumour is it was an external betting syndicate who ordered the poisoning. Who knows?

I wouldn't like to conclude that nz would've won if not for the incident, but it's a shame such a great occasion was cheapened by the undeniable severe illness.




"I was a police officer, I worked with facts. What my eyes told me that night was that the team had deliberately been poisoned."

Steyn said medical staff were able to get most of the players back to playing shape apart from Mehrtens and Wilson.

He said the "illness" which had swept through the team had a major impact on the All Blacks' preparation for the final.

"I had to endure accusations of complicity in this, from New Zealand officials, and I was very angry that this was allowed to happen in my country - to people in my care," Steyn said.

The security man says the All Blacks were the best team in the competition - "against the Ellis' Park altitude and against food poisoning they ran South Africa close into extra time, so close.

I think AB fans are pretty good at acknowledging when we win a came under controversial or odd circumstances and feel a bit sheepish about it. When teams beat the ABs, those kinda things are swept under the carpet and not discussed. It's just ABs sour grapes.

I beg to differ ebop.

Here are some extracts from what South Africans had to say about the match.

"Critics will argue that the Boks resigned themselves to a defensive mindset, however I contend that the All Blacks simply showed their class with this second-half display. The Boks absorbed some of that pressure and made a few attempts to relieve it, Pollard’s touch finder for instance. However the All Blacks took a quick lineout and continued their assault, with several Bok turnovers almost resulting in promising counter attacks only to be won back by the darkness.

Richie McCaw and his men were not happy to chase this game with penalty conversions, opting instead for lineouts and scrums to continue their onslaught. McCaw’s calm demeanour under the pressure of chasing a game in an opposition stronghold is a testament to the belief within this All Black team. They simply believed that continued attack would turn the tide and their insistence was rewarded with two well-orchestrated tries.

Conrad Smith showed his class with a scything run through the South African defence and allowed Ben Smith to touch down. His break was facilitated by Jean de Villiers, who once again found himself out of position after rushing ahead to close down the pass. This mirrored his missed tackle on Beauden Barrett last year at the same venue under similar circumstances.

Continued attack from the All Blacks culminated in a try for Dane Coles after the Springbok defence had been spread thin. The game stood on a knife-edge at this point after Barret missed the conversion, and with minutes to play the All Blacks looked poised to continue their record unbeaten streak"

"There is no doubt that New Zealand still sits at the apex of world rugby, but my team went toe-to-toe with the best and showed true grit to come out with a victory"

"I think thats what makes NZ so good – they always have that intensity and desire to win"

"The All Blacks lacked accuracy on attack at times, a lot of it had to do with the sheer pressure being applied in defence by both sides. In saying that, their backs were immense for the most part. Julian Savea was a very close candidate for man-of-match with his devastating runs. His chip kick in the thirty third minute and break in the fourty fourth minute were all class.

The All Blacks’ impact players shaded the Boks’ this time round. Steve Luatua was ever present and made some decent lineout gains as well.

The All Blacks showed why they have been so difficult to beat over the years. They are certainly an ‘eighty-minute team’. They never give up, never stop believing, never fade. The answer is there if you want to beat them (it’s not an easy one): Never lose focus, don’t make mistakes in your own half, never let them have a sniff"


I can find you a thousand more.

The thing that glares most to me, and this isn't the criticism of the penalty, is that, had it not been awarded, NZ would be lauded for yet another come back win. We've seen so many close scrapes during the 23 matches and anyone of them could've and probably did hinge on similar refereeing calls.

At the end of the day, there is very little between NZ and SA, and that has been the case throughout the ABs record equalling run. It could have been ended at any time, or it could have gone on for another year.

I'm picking NZ to lose to both Australia and Wales in the last part of this year, before refocusing for the World Cup.

Yes biltong those are vey complementary and we could show you similar stuff that we say about you guys. It's mutual respect don't worry about that. It wasn't my point though but that's ok. The weekend was not a good example of 'AB sour grapes'. I think everyone acknowledges the better team won and deservedly so.

fa0019 wrote:Taylorman

I respect your view, it's not mine but I don't simply think, ah you came close in the actual match and apparently weren't 100% so if you were you would have been better which obviously equates to victory... I don't buy it. I would say simply that it would have produced a different game. Throughout the tournament your entire game was built around lomu, to score and give you line breaks and frontfoot ball... SA stopped him and stopped him throughout his career. Was he sick for the other 11 matches where he also failed to score???

NZ had a system , the boks trumped it and they had no answer to the rush defence and dominant pack.

Sometimes teams make changes right up to the warm up, sure it will knock the side a little but teams adapt to the developments. But you make them if necessary, that's coaching.

Donald was the 53rd choice pivot in 2011 and was on a fishing holiday no when he was called in? Had zero time with the team but his name will be the one to go down in the history books. You adapt and you make the calls which are necessary. Henry didn't rate him at all, but he made the call he knew he had to.

Re Lomu there is no secret that the Boks pinned their entire final hopes on stopping Lomu. In doing that he managed to create opportunities for other players so he still had immense value by even being on the field. In that final the other players werent up to it. But that isnt the point here.

Its a common view held since the match, it isn't going to change so why bother? Its like trying to say Lawrence didnt cause the Boks demise in 2011.

I don't think he 'favoured' one side or another. He was poor for both. But the commonly held SA view is that if he was competent the Boks would have won. Wheres the logic in that?

Like I said...its a view...simple as that.

ebop, it is the very small minority suggesting sour grapes, I have said to Disney and those who read the threads on here that the Kiwi supporters were complimentary about the Bok win.

What is big and grey and doesn't matter at all?

Richard wrote:What is big and grey and doesn't matter at all?

a ghost?

Biltong wrote:ebop, it is the very small minority suggesting sour grapes, I have said to Disney and those who read the threads on here that the Kiwi supporters were complimentary about the Bok win.

Boks are certainly entering a newish era Biltong so although its exciting its also going to be scary finding their way. I see it simply as backs adding the value that they should have been all along. For so long the Boks have excluded the backs as central to the overall plan. They've always been a bonus, a supplement to the real work going on in the forwards. Its 10 versus 15 man rugby.

Thats why I think Bok rugby will gradually take over as no. 1 again, because they'll learn that rugby is a 15 man game at its core. They simply havn't to now. They've always been a pack, with backs, and they've learned that's just not good enough. Each position is just as important as the next. Simple concept- huge benefits.

lostinwales wrote:

Richard wrote:What is big and grey and doesn't matter at all?

a ghost?

No, it's irrelephant.

Richard wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Richard wrote:What is big and grey and doesn't matter at all?

a ghost?

No, it's irrelephant.

Is an irrelephant in the room like an elephant under the carpet?

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:ebop, it is the very small minority suggesting sour grapes, I have said to Disney and those who read the threads on here that the Kiwi supporters were complimentary about the Bok win.

Boks are certainly entering a newish era Biltong so although its exciting its also going to be scary finding their way. I see it simply as backs adding the value that they should have been all along. For so long the Boks have excluded the backs as central to the overall plan. They've always been a bonus, a supplement to the real work going on in the forwards. Its 10 versus 15 man rugby.

Thats why I think Bok rugby will gradually take over as no. 1 again, because they'll learn that rugby is a 15 man game at its core. They simply havn't to now. They've always been a pack, with backs, and they've learned that's just not good enough. Each position is just as important as the next. Simple concept- huge benefits.

I'm not so optimistic myself. I see the boks having a lot of talent at halfbacks for the first time but their are a few areas which are beginning to show a little concern.

Backrow - 10 years ago you could list out 10 backrow forwards in SA which were world class, easy. Its been the boks area of strength together with prop but for some reason the talent pool is rather average all of a sudden. Chaps like Schalk Burger and Juan Smith on current form wouldn't even be near the squad had they been around 5-10 seasons back yet they are still key to Meyer's squad. The same can be said for prop.

When people are seriously thinking about Nizaam Carr as the next generation bok we know we're in trouble. He is a decent club player, that's it.

See Argentina roll the bokke pack in the last game?? Yes when Frans Malherbe and Coenie Oosthuizen come back to fitness and form it would be a giant of a pack but that's 2 players. The next 2 are simply not good enough. Gone are the days when the bokke are 10kg heavier and no one dominated them upfront. I think Wales, Ireland & England will really target the boks and I think they will lose at least 1 of those games (in terms of chances I would say probably England, Perhaps Ireland and if the stars are aligned, Wales )

Jaque Fourie still seems like SA's only real hope at 13. When was the last time they had a genuine alternative to Fourie at 13? He's been in the team since 2003 and he won't be match fit for the RWC15, not the boks preferred game. Japan changes players, they are far less bulky. JDV the same. Serfontein is a natural 12 but a round peg in a square hole at 13. Engelbrecht can't tackle, De Jongh is a little lightweight albeit very talented and the rest don't come close.

Wingers... Habana and Pietersen will still be the top choice come next year. Pietersen has it all in terms of skill but doesn't get on the scoresheet enough but they are 5 steps slower than they were and SA genuinely miss raw speed in their backline. Again they have been there an age and there is no one seemingly pushing them.

I do like Hendricks though. He has a decent defence and who would have thought it... he took down this generations "Lomu" all on his own on Saturday (as did Pollard in fact... Lomu he ain't). But again for a youngster he shows only moderate speed, running lines are good and makes up for it but when you're only as fast as a 30+yr old who has played 100 tests, a decade of pro rugby etc and is more heavy set than you (vs. Habana) you have to wonder about his long term prospects. Could be 1 Achilles injury away from the scrapheap IMO.

I simply don't see the strength in depth they once had. Given Meyer is still flogging Bakkies, Matfield, Smith, Burger, Du Preez, J Du Plessis, Habana, Fourie & Pietersen its quite clear it is a genuine problem.

The Bok pack has a lot of injured players out FA.

Malherbe, Coenie, FLip v d Merwe, Pieter Steph u TOit, Arno BOtha,

We have plenty of 13s

JOrdaan
JJ Engelbrecht
Juan de Jongh
Lionel Mapoe
JP PIetersen is now best suited at 13

Then we have 12s
Jan Serfontein
ANdre Esterhuzen
Damian de Allende

half backs
Hougaard
Reinach
van Zyl

FLyhalf
Goosen
Lambie
BOshoff
Pollard

Biltong wrote:The Bok pack has a lot of injured players out FA.

Malherbe, Coenie, FLip v d Merwe, Pieter Steph u TOit, Arno BOtha,

We have plenty of 13s

JOrdaan
JJ Engelbrecht
Juan de Jongh
Lionel Mapoe
JP PIetersen is now best suited at 13

Then we have 12s
Jan Serfontein
ANdre Esterhuzen
Damian de Allende

half backs
Hougaard
Reinach
van Zyl

FLyhalf
Goosen
Lambie
BOshoff
Pollard

Yes but which of those players are world class potential. 10 years ago the boks had dozens lining up in every position bar 10. Now we have Goosen, Lambie, Pollard, Boshoff, Catrakilis which is great yet we are losing strength all over the park.

Do you honestly rate those centres against previous generations?

Serfontein lets be honest is a few years behind JDV at the same age already. Being the next generation Brad Barritt is not good enough I'm afraid. Jean had great line movement, turn of pace, key for the try line, defence the lot. Same goes for Fourie and prior generations were just the same.
Only Frans Steyn was at the same table in terms of all round abilities but he will never again wear the jersey.

I just look at the team and see when injuries occur the boks performance drops significantly. Their strength in depth is lacking for me.

I think you need to give tese youngsters a chance, there is a whole new generation of rugby player coming through at the moment.

Look at Jaque FOurie as an example, he only made a regular selection at the Boks n 2009, at age 25.

Jean de Villiers started as a wing, cum centre, much like JJ Engelbrecht, and he is very limited in his ball skills.

We haven't had the depth of flyhalf we currently have in the pro era.

The youngsters in the age 20-24 is full of potential.

[quote]... so I'm going for 31st October 2015 as the day Wales will beat the All Blacks...[quote]

Have you scheduled a freindly with the ABs on World Cup final day then?

Biltong wrote:I think you need to give tese youngsters a chance, there is a whole new generation of rugby player coming through at the moment.

Look at Jaque FOurie as an example, he only made a regular selection at the Boks n 2009, at age 25.

Jean de Villiers started as a wing, cum centre, much like JJ Engelbrecht, and he is very limited in his ball skills.

We haven't had the depth of flyhalf we currently have in the pro era.

The youngsters in the age 20-24 is full of potential.

2009... more like 2005 no?

The chap at the sharks, Esterhuizen is potentially promising but he needs to start making strides soon.

Serfontein I'm afraid is simply too static, too wooden.  We need more than simply commitment. In some ways I see Engelbrecht as a better prospect as talent and pace are things he has. You can work on defence at least... look at Habana for instance.

He got his first cap in 2005 or somewhere around there, but only made a regular start since 2009

Biltong wrote:He got his first cap in 2005 or somewhere around there, but only made a regular start since 2009

Dude he played in the 2003 world cup and was the starter for Jake White. We're talking of Jaque Fourie right????