PAPakie
Captain17,321 posts
15 Jul 2014, 03:37#2
Well, as I always said about the 2007 WC, we could only play what was in front of us. England knocked out France and Australia in the quarters and semis, making them worthy final opponents in my view. New Zealand choked against France in the quarters, while Fiji knocked out Wales to face us in the quarters. It's not the Boks' fault that not one of the teams who they were supposed to beat to give their cup win credibility were there to face them. If they were worthy, they would have been.
Incidentally, our semi-final opponent Argentina knocked France over twice in that tournament, first in the pool stages before obliterating them in the 3rd place playoff.
15 Jul 2014, 03:58#3
Agreed Pakie - its one thing pointing out an easy draw in pool play, which is predetermined, but a totally different thing to complain about "easy" competition in the playoff stage when the teams are there on their own merit for how they performed and who they beat in pool play.
I pointed out elsewhere that 2007 was the zenith for Argentine rugby - started the year ranked 6th and after a great RWC were 3rd.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Jul 2014, 04:17#4
Pakie...good heavens. Welcome, how long since we last crossed paths?
15 Jul 2014, 04:43#5
The mere fact that you blokes are trying to justify the Boks easy run in 2007 tells me you also have nagging doubts about the genuineness of the results in that tournament.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Jul 2014, 04:46#6
If we do, how much more doubt ridden should you chaps in NZ be Moolaa . Seriously, do you think it's harder to beat Oz in NZ or the Poms at Twickenham?
PAPakie
Captain17,321 posts
15 Jul 2014, 09:58#8
Hi Moz. Long, long time. I'm sure I had more hair back then. I only recently saw this forum was active again. Doubt I'll be around as much as in the old days though.
Moolaa, no doubts about the genuineness, just two simple logical questions: why were the teams who supposedly would have made it harder for the Boks not there to do so? What does that say about their title worthiness?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Jul 2014, 11:55#9
Mozart
I was so convinced that the Sprinbgboks would win the 2007 WC - irrespective of opposition - that I spent a small fortune going to France to watch the games and travelling all over Europe as well.
However, I was also convinced that the 2011 WC campaign of SA would be a wash out and after seeing the teams cancelled a visit to New Zealand to see them play. There was no way that team of hasbeens could ever make n impression in that competition. By 2010 most of them were way past their best - same as all the previous winners were when they made the same mistake in team selection n reataiin reputation players.
That should be an object lesson for all teams - to many reputation players ruin the chances of teams in the WC.
Now lets get back to NZ - they won the WC in 1987 and 2011. There can be arguments about the 2011 win though - NZ won by a whisker because of a dubious penalty kick that the line judges shows as being converted but scientific analysis indicated it was actually a missed kick.
In neither the 1995 nor 2007 finals South Africa scored any tries whatsoever - but neither did New Zealand in 1995 or 2011. The argument is therefore somewhat hollow - the teams that won the WC in those two cases were absent in the real rugby requirements/objectives of scoring tries in the finals. The really better winners were the Aussies - and that is a fact.
PAPakie
Captain17,321 posts
15 Jul 2014, 12:28#10
New Zealand scored a try in 2011. The final score was 8-7. Your "real rugby requirements/objectives of scoring tries in the finals" is purely subjective. The objective is to win the game. Team A scores 6 penalties for 18 points. Team B 3 tries, two unconverted, for 17 points. Guess who goes down in history as a champion and who gets the "despite scoring 3 tries..." treatment .
15 Jul 2014, 13:02#11
Oh you really you need to get over it. Fact is you can bring out any excuse in the book, scientific analysis, ref biast dodging French momentum. The objective of rugby is to score more points then the opposistion. Regardless of what the ref does, it does make a accumulative factor tbh. NZ had the best team at the world cup, and had the best momentum, their is no buying the wc, just NZ were simply the better team. Creating a thread and trying to deconstruct or take away what NZ rightfully deserved is just petty, move on. Whether or not Boks had an easy road to winning the 2007 wc, or NZ did is Elementary, no one cares at the end of the day how you win, history just tells who wan. NZ smashed Aussie in the semis so that argument is invalid too.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Jul 2014, 14:01#12
Pakie
Thanks for correcting me - I sometimes slip up in dealing with past games.That being the case the AB's were the more worthy winner of the WC compared to SA.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Jul 2014, 14:30#14
DA
Whether a farce or not - we lost the Aussie game - that is the fact of life. If we won that one - with that team we would NOT have won't have won the semi in any event. The reason is clear - by that time most of the over 30's in the team was not up to standard anymore - as was proven in the tests played in 2010 and 2011 - resulting in all indications being negative insofar as the WC is concerned.
Selection on reputation has doomed every team who ever played in the WC and won since its inception - that is a fact of life. The 2011 team was largely a reputation team - not a performance team. History was against us - and that is a fact.
There was no way the SA team as selected could have won the WC in 2011 - even if Brycy was not the real reason for losing against the Aussies.
15 Jul 2014, 15:07#16
Jeezum crow Mike ,what fecking scientific analysis are you on about ? Perhaps you should use that on the Welsh penalty in the pool game vs SA? If you win all the marbles that makes you "Worthy " as to quantifying said "Worthyness" How about ....most points scored in tournament Most tries Best points differential Beat France .....twice ! Unbeaten in pool play.....ever Easily beat Oz [ something other teams struggled to do ??] Still number one and only ONE loss since 2011 ,and not to the Boks or Oz either ! As for France supposedly being more "worthy " pfftttt if they were they would have kicked their penalties and won .The only team that may have been hard done by was Wales , SA could still have won if Steyn had done the only thing hes good at and kicked his penalties.
DADevil's Advocate
Pro7,008 posts
DADevil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
15 Jul 2014, 15:09#17
Couldn't agree more Wardad
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Jul 2014, 17:20#18
Hell Moolaa those stats must be ancient. I'm saying in the last ten years, NZ is more likely to lose to England at Twickenham than it is to lose to Oz in NZ. Ergo, our RWC was a harder ask. Do you have the stats since RWC03?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Jul 2014, 18:09#19
DA
The situation in 2007 was that the team was composed basically of players who actually did not play in the 2003 WC. They mostly started playing for the Springboks in 2004-05 - that is they were relative juniors by the time the 2007 WC came around. As far as I could remember Os was one of the few longer term players who were in the team - the latter having been in the 1995 WC. Monty was already a Springbok in 1997 - but fell out of favour and was only brought back into the set up by White after the 2003 WC. De Villiers was supposed to be in the 2003 team - but was injured before the series and was injured in the first WC game in 2007 and consequently replaced by Francois Steyn.
In 2007 most of the players were aged between 25 and 30 years of age - with only Os and Monty older than that.
In 2011 the players over 30 took the team backwards since they were past there prime and that include the majority of the players - even those below 30 years of age in 2011 - were shadows of their performances in the period 2007 to 2009. Performance decay set in by 2010 and was a fait accompli by 2011.
Meantime the few replacements were mostly way below par by 2011. Kirchner was never really top class and Morne Steyn in 2011 was poor - read what the ESPN profile says about him.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Jul 2014, 19:29#21
Twelve of 28 players in the squad and three of those were not anywhere in the 2003 WC squad - Os. Monty and De Villiers. The rest were mostly back up players in 2003 - then we had De Villiers - who was selected for the 2003 WC - but never played.
How many tests were played between the 2003 and 2007 WC's? I believe circa 60 - so it is easy to pick up in a squad of 28 players - a total of 809 test caps.
What ti is indisputable is that the average age of the 2007 WC was circa 27 years of age and that the performances in tests before the 2011 WC showed a serious decline in performances of the older players.
Now lets face it - it is not a theory - it is a fact.
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
15 Jul 2014, 21:16#22
Lets simplify matters. The first wc was won by nz. BUT The Boks were not playing so how much does that count. Greatly cheapens the win.Next France as mediocre as they were completely outplayed the wee abs in the last WC final but were robbed of a win by our own Craig Joubert - as the You Tube clip produced by Moz so clearly showed.
Hence abs have not really been worthy winners once.
However the Boks beat the abs in a final so unless the abs were useless it must be a meritoriouis win. Hahahahha that puts the kbbs in a difficult spot.
The Bok wc win in England was the only away WC win in history so clearly that has great merit.
So its the Boks hands down.Ga me set and match.
PAPakie
Captain17,321 posts
15 Jul 2014, 21:45#23
The Boks in 2007 was not the only away win. England won it in Sydney against Australia in 2003 and Australia won at Twickenham against England in 1991.
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
15 Jul 2014, 21:52#24
Co rrect Pakie. I should rather have said the abs have not won away from home!
PAPakie
Captain17,321 posts
15 Jul 2014, 22:40#25
Don't worry Beeno, I understand that one has to allow a margin of error with you
MDMonkey D Luffy
Pro6,277 posts
MDMonkey D LuffyPro6,277 posts
15 Jul 2014, 22:45#26
All Blacks not winning the RWC away from home is the only choke tag the world has left and fair enough cos its true.
but its also very easy to see that no one understands that RWCs is only in its infancy, & RWCs to date??? once their have been more RWCs u will see the ledger well and trully favoured in the All Blacks corner just like nearly every single other record or title.
after 7 TriNats, the All Blacks had only won 4. fast forward to 2011 and the All Blacks had 10 from 16.
the Boks won 2007 thats a fact, just like its a fact the 2007 Boks are the only team to win a RWC in the same year they never beat the All Blacks.
i see some of the saffas here are still playing the whole ref debacle, old boring and unsubstantiated dribble which fades into white noise.
i wonder if those same clowns can name the only player in test rugby to be yellow carded for obstruction,
DBDbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DBDbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
15 Jul 2014, 22:47#27
Pakie, how can you be a Ref with only 5 posts to your name? Surely Ed and the owners of the board must have the same disregard for match officials as Beenz?
PAPakie
Captain17,321 posts
15 Jul 2014, 23:14#28
Well on the positive side, you can just blame me if something goes wrong on the board.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Jul 2014, 23:52#29
Personally I don't have reservations about any RWC win...the winning team played a bunch of in form sides. But there is this silly thing that the Boks 2007 RWC win was lucky. So I challenged that notion by putting our double victory over the Poms in Twickenham in context....that was a harder ask than beating Oz/ France in NZ. I'm not in any sense saying NZ didn't deserve their win....but so did Jake's Boks.
DBDbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DBDbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
16 Jul 2014, 00:25#30
SA and Oz the only 2 sides 2 beat NZ in a WC final I think. SA also 2 - 1 up in head to head encounters in RWC. The only positives against NZ in the last 20 odd years. Sad really.
