Does history haunt the wee abs?

I suppose it would have to Ex Supersport

With France it was 2007, South Africa in 1995. New Zealanders have long memories when it comes to hurtful World Cup losses, but the All Blacks refuse to be sidetracked by history.

As they prepare to face South Africa in Saturday's semifinal, they would rather talk about familiarity with their fiercest rival and not a deep-seated grudge.

It is 20 years since they lost the 1995 final to South Africa in Johannesburg amid talk the team had been poisoned by a mysterious waitress called "Suzie".(BWahahahahahahahahahahaahhaahahahahahahahahha)

Most of the current team had not reached their teens by then and while they talk of upholding the honour of the jersey and respecting its history they claim little knowledge of painful defeats, so often raised by the media.

"I was born in '88 so I don't remember the game or anything," lock Sam Whitelock said Tuesday. (Now that is of course patent rubbish)

"Obviously in the history of the World Cup you can go back.

"There's a number of massive games the All Blacks and Springboks have played throughout a number of tournaments.

"I think this is the first time we've played each other in a semifinal so it'll be pretty cool to see how it goes and I'm sure it will be part of history."

After whipping France 62-13 in Sunday's quarterfinal, the All Blacks ended a week of denial about France shattering their World Cup hopes in 2007 by admitting they had "fixed up" that defeat.

But against a team like South Africa, whom they play far more often than France, the All Blacks are measuring themselves against more recent performances than 1995.

- Ultimate rival -

"Two teams who have got a lot of history over the last few years, played some pretty outstanding test matches so looking forward to a big challenge," Kieran Read said.

"History has shown that prior form means nothing when it comes to a finals game. We've got to turn up and certainly take lessons from the games we've played against them in the past."

Conrad Smith described the Springboks as New Zealand's "ultimate rival."

"There's something special about playing them so meeting them in a semi is going to be extra special."

The familiarity is evident as the All Blacks refer to their Springbok opposites by their Christian names, rather than the surnames they use when referring to players in other sides.

"All their loose forwards, with Schalk as well, they're a pretty complete package," flanker Victor Vito said in reference to Schalk Burger.

"Obviously Victor's been injured," added Whitelock talking about his longtime rival Victor Matfield, while Smith is "gutted for Jean", the South Africa captain Jean de Villiers who suffered a broken jaw against Samoa.

With such familiarity comes the knowledge that they will have to raise their game from the performance that swamped France.

"We were very good at upsetting French lineout ball, we'd love to do the same thing against the Springboks but history would suggest and form would suggest they will be lot better at their set piece," Smith said.

"There's one big factor. And we're going to have to defend them better than what we did last Saturday."

In the 1995 final, many of the All Blacks were said to have food poisoning. Coach Laurie Mains claimed a waitress known as "Suzie" had tampered with their water. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - KBBS PLEASE TRY THINKING UP SOMETHING MORE PLAUSIBLE!!!

The match ended 9-9 and went into extra time where Joel Stransky kicked the winning drop goal WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHY RUEBEN KRUGERS TRY WAS DISALLOWED!!!)

In one of sports most iconic moments, Nelson Mandela, wearing a Springbok jersey presented the William Webb Ellis Cup to South African captain François Pienaar.

I sense there is a bit of panic in the AB camp and that relates to what happened in the three most recent tests between the All Blacks and the Springboks.   
Lets look at the situation in the tests first and then at the teams who played in those tests:-
*   In the Wellington test the AB;s was leading by 14 - 10 towards the end of the game.   They were under pressure late in the game and gave away a penalty virtually in front of the polls and a corner kick was the result.  The 5 meter line-out resulted in a ball fumble by Matfield and instead of a rolling maul - which was the intended purpose - the attack ultimately failed,  
*   In the subsequent Ellis Park test the AB's lost the test.
*   In the Durban test this year - th AB scrum was under serious pressure and they were saved from a scrum deep in the AB 22 when Koch was injured and the scrums became uncontested.   There win actually resulted from a foul-up very late in teh game.
I mentioned Matfield specifically in the first case - because he won't be there to help along the AB's.   However, lets look at the team selection of the teams at present:-
*   The only cast improvement made by the AB's was the selection of Milner-Skudder - the rest of the team is the same as met the Springboks and either win unconvincingly or lose the one game.   
*   In the case of the Springboks the basic substance of the team changed.  The present team has a better center combination than the case was last year.  Du Preez is also an improvement as a scrummie compared to the scrummies used in the mentioned tests.   The locks situation is better than it was last year with Matfield being replaced by De Jager.  The scrumming will improve with Malherbe in the mix - he is not only a better scrummager than Jannie - but also a better player outside of scrumming.
In essence the AB;s can count Milner-Skudder as a major improvement, but ill that off-set the rather average performances of the rest of the team against the Springboks in the recent tests?   
Although there are still some deficiencies in essentially the back row and even in the case of Beast - Meyer made a balls-up in selections in those cases - there is clear evidence of major improvements in the Springbok team since the three tests mentioned and I think that is worrying the AB's.
The issue will be settled today - but to think that any side will score a runaway victory is ludicrous and unlikely to occur.    
   
 
      
      
      

 Well said Mike but did you see my comments re the BAD NEWS re the ref.
Cloudy I assure you that if we are shafted yet again by a ref I will not be quiet. Enough is enough and that was years ago!

Beeno, you are already getting yourself worked up about the ref & the game is hours away. You will be passed out comatose by the time the ref blows the whistle for kickoff.

 Beeno
The refs is under a very tight reign in teh WC - as is proved by what happened in the case of Joubert.  I know that Garces will be veryc areful not to be caught out - like he was in previous tests and am not particularly worried about that one.

 ou maaaikie your arguments here are weak.Scotland are out becasue of a ref error.Garces if the past is repeated will hand the game to the wee abson the a paltter.You have seen what Poite is capable of - nz ref in pocket supremo. We ahve a down under TMO!!!!Clancy of ireland will no doubt also favour the abs as Irish refs are amongst the owrst after NZ and OZ.French refs used to be good but Poite and Garces are something else.Well maybe things will be okay but a worse ref panel could hardly be imagined.
The Guts better not look to hard at wee mcaaaaw lest thye geta yellow. Wee abs will be hiding behind the ref as usual. Cheap shots, red zone infringements and illegal tactics - eg mcaaaws illegal try that won them the previosu test. If the Boks do anything its a yellow. Yellow cards are the wee abs best weapon.