Our World Cup Losses......ranked

The Boks have a game uniquely suited to the WC... risk averse, huge defence, strong set pieces, reliable kicking. So we haven't lost many times at the WC, and only three times by 10 points or more. We are the the most formidable team at the WC. Here are our losses, ranked from smallest to biggest:

1. 2011 9 to 11....vs Oz

2. 2015  18 to 20 vs NZ

3. 2015 32 to 34....vs Japan

4. 1999 21 to 27.....vs Oz

5. 2019 13 to 23....vs Nz

6 2003 6 to 25.....vs England

7. 2003 9 to 29......vs NZ

So our biggest  losses were both against NZ, this year and in Destroyli's era. Other than those two bigger losses we lost by 2 points in each instance, except 1999 where we were tied after full time.

We have never lost at the WC to a northern hemisphere team, except the pool game against the powerful 2003 Pom team, which is an interesting commentary on our physicality, as they play somewhat similar games. In fact we have played 5 knockout games against the NH without losing.

We appear to only be at risk against the more fluid games played by our SH rivals...not in the NH arm wrestles. Which is why our WC wins haven't necessarily translated into following year TN/RC success.  Hopefully 2020 will be different

Jake and Kitch are our only coaches  who are undefeated at the WC.

Very interesting. We've had some close calls against Wales, but when it's an arm-wrestle goal kicking and defence is quite a means of splitting sides. The game is won and lost in the trenches, and that is why I preferred England over the other 6N sides, physical superiority. They are far from soft, but England's game has shifted, they don't possess the power of old. As we see against New Zealand, we were not built to chase a deficit. If you don't allow a team to get ahead of you, you'll always be in striking distance towards the latter part of the game. 

I should add, England defeated us in 2003, 25-6 . Another game we were in control of until we had to chase a lead. Poor goal kicking blew what could have been a substantial half-time lead. 

I forgot about that English loss in the pools in  2003.....thanks for the correction, which I have made above.

Mozart

The 2007 world cup never feature a game against New Zealand, Australia and France.  Very near to a loss against Tonga though.   Otherwise an easy ride to the final even though the Springboks also struggled against Fiji.  

2003 was a disaster year for Springbok rugby and the losses were unacceptable.  However, the losses against top rank teams is not a disgrace.   The biggest disgrace ever that hit Springboks rugby was the 2015 loss against the 15th ranked Japan team.   Thanks Meyer and the rugby geriatrics for that.   

The "near loss" featured the fan favourites.

1. Steenkamp
2. Botha
3. Van der Linde
4. Botha 
5. Van den Berg
6. van Heerden
7. Rossouw
8. Skinstad 
9. Januarie 
10. Pretorius
11. Willemse
12. Julies
13. Olivier
14. Pietersen 
15. Pienaar

Dinna worry Muck will bring up the same argument a week from now as if it didn't exist. I think a better argument is whether we faced good opposition that was on form that day. And if that's the criteria, the 2007 final at represented a much sterner challenge than the 2019 final where England imploded.

Hahahaha what a load of crud. England thrashed NZ who are despite all the BS are still a quality side but not physical enough. 

England were firm favorites to win. 

The Bok pack fielded by Rassie including reserves is about the best pack ever fielded by anybody at a world cup. 

With a real lock like Lood in place, two hugely powerful looses England could not cope. Beast was excellent and, Marx a power house. No more pap wee matfiled to ruin the tight five. 

The whole situation with the Boks was turned around in a mere 18 months. Get over it Rassie bashers. Rassie is the the rugby world coach of the year. 

Boks the Rugby team of the year. Du Toit the player of the year. 

Boks are ranked number 1 in the world and RWC champs.

A lot of  very red faces frequent the board  right now and one hopes they accept they got it all badly wrong. LMAO!!!! 

We must not forget that goat of goats Wee cc the ab wannabe, the Welsh wannabe and the Pom wannabe. Whahahahahaha. Will the doofus ever recover. 

Rooibozo was dismayed the Welsh didn't beat the Boks as he doesn't like Eben and all the Mighty men from the Stormers including ex Stormers like Louw and Vermuelen. 

All in all a wonderful time for many and an EGG time for others. 

England represented a different kind of threat in 2007. A lot of power up front, with little finesse. That isn't to say that they didn't have talent, but there were many problems. Having Catt at 10 and Farrell backfired spectacularly in the pool stages, but Wilkinson at 10 and Catt at 12 brought about more stability. In the end, they competed hard at the breakdown, which made the game an arm wrestle. They were able to compete in a way that the 2019 side couldn't, at the source. The 2007 England side were a worse match up for us. They completely shut down a star studded Wallaby side in the QF, one that could barely get out of their half, at all.

Do note that I don't like to raise these kinds of issues, and this is the first time I am discussing strength of schedule and opposition. The 2019 Boks did have it easier, and where they faced difficult opposition, they were favourable match ups. The only one that wasn't was the game we lost. 

You are an absolute fool for going there Lügnerin.

You can only play what's in front of you. But what was in front of us was a team that had already taken a victory lap....they passed balls into touch, couldn't scrum, kept making school boy errors like Lawes lying on the ball right at the start. They thought they were already champs.

And not all of that had to do with us....hell the same scrum hardly dominated the Wallies whose starting front row  conceded only 1 more penalty than the Boks.

Well done to Eraser for winning.....but the final was pretty one sided.

Ceradyne 

I was sure that SA would be in the contention if not winning the WC.   I went to France on holiday and saw everyone of the matches played,   I nearly had a fit at the Tonga test.   The Springboks was behind in scoring points,   Before the last 8 minutes Tonga still led - but the Springboks scored a try and won the match 30 - 25.   

The other matches in the Round Robin did show opposition - even the English had stage fright and surrendered ingloriously.

Due to a multiple of unexpected results the play-offs against SA was a the rather weak Fiji and the rather unpredictable Argentinians.   The rest is history, 

There is no reason not to write what really happened in matches,       

So by implication and by calling NZ a weak team it would simply improbable  we would have beaten NZ should we have met them in the semi or the final.   That is after they beat SA twice in 2007 - the second time the score was 30 - 6.    The situation is that NZ was never a weak team - rather an unlucky team.   

Mozart

"Dinna worry Muck will bring up the same argument a week from now as if it didn't exist. I think a better argument is whether we faced good opposition that was on form that day. And if that's the criteria, the 2007 final at Twickenham represented a much sterner challenge than the 2019 final where England imploded."

I believe the 2007 WC tournament was in FRANCE and that the final was at Stade d'France.  Was Twickenham moved to France pure ly to ensure the final is played at Twickenham.      

AO

England did not represent a problem at all - the first game in the RR showed it clearly,   that  moving Catt to center and bring in Wilkinson  at flyhalf made that big a difference - the latter was already in serious career decline and did not contribute much in the game.  Catt had the same problem.  

Why should there be a sudden superiority of the English on the ground when it did not happen in the RR stage.  I watched the game many times and what was clear was  that between the first game and the final there was a complete difference in the nature it was played and in the SA game plan.  It was like dictating the game and the SA was not the winners in that context,   The English also made mistakes and gave away 4 too many penalties, 

It is clear that there was no plan to counter the English up front and it seems as of the Springboks were unable to use their backline like they did in the first test.  I seriously believe that the one-dimensional approach could easily have cost SA the match.  Even Smith in public said if the try scored in the corner was given, the Springboks would have had to try and score a try, If that was the case that obviously implies that there were no plans in place for playing attacking rugby and the scoring of tries.   

For me it was clear that White allowed a situation to develop whereby the game was played  according to England dictate.                        

I do believe Ceradyne is wrong in his evaluation of the issue Beeno referred to earlier.   The AB's was really not the strongest one ever and the proof that they beat a team with a totally absent game plan by only 2 points, would have resulted in a different outcome if they met a properly coached and selected SA team.     The 2019 squad would have put double figures over the 2015 team.   

There was a lot of players from the 2015 squad in the 2019 team - but the differences in their performances were vastly superior in the latter  team,      .       

Stade de France.....right you are Muck.

Dreck, put aside delusions of a possible romance with José Erasmus and be honest with yourself. The 2007 England side had the tools to take the Boks on up front. Not only that, they had Wilkinson and Catt to play a smarter territorial game. The results speak for themselves, the 2019 English team were not able to assert themselves up front - as I predicted they wouldn't. Your knowledge of these teams is very poor Herr Dreck. As I said before, it was very foolish of you to bring up strength of opposition. You have no foresight at all, but that comes with being a compulsive liar, why stop and think of the consequences. Experience should eventually make you wiser, yet you never learn. 

"It is clear that there was no plan to counter the English up front"

Speak for yourself. The only reason you cannot discern game plans is because you yourself have no knowledge of the game beyond 'the man has dah bawl' und 'he arez tekled lekker gut'. Thus, speak for yourself. Then you embarrass yourself by endorsing the supposedly intricate and futuristic total rugby of Rassie only for him to implement the exact game plan you have been deriding probably all of the last twenty years. You have brought great shame upon yourself Lügnerin. I didn't think it was possible to sink any lower, but if ever you had a talent, it was for self destruction. 

Cerudunce a pack of forwards doesn't make up the entire team. I was talking about the forwards being the best. Wakey Wakey. 

As for Mike being delusional he certainly got it right re Rassie, Du Toit, Allende and Malherbe, which makes him right and some here horrendously WRONG WHAHAHAHAHAHA LMAO!

Talking about game plans - only a total idiot dreams those up and then pretend they were introduced.   That was totally clear when the issue was dealt with in the past.  The stupidity in commenting on what I wrote above is matchless.   No answers at all.   He did not even see the difference iro the game plan in the 1st English RR test and the final in 2007.   It would hit anybody in the face and raise question marks - but our local village idiot did not recognizxe the difference at all.  

Erasmus had a problem in the WC final this year and develop counter-measures to counter threats posed by the English  team and also did a lot to get the game as unpredictable as possible - hence the success of the team in 2019.   On record the English was over-whelming favourites - but they lost by a huge margin.  That shows what can be achieved through thorough planning by a coach - not as obvious in 2007.           

Yes Mike who can fault the planning by Erasmus against England. Jones was completely outsmarted

But some dopes here say it was all Nieaber and man Rassie brought along and developed. 

This all gets funnier by the day as the Rassie bashing weasels twist and turn in the wind blowing them away. 

Cerudunce is furious that Rassie did better than Meyer, a competent coach. 

Man it's hilarious. 

Great pack. Great defence very good flyhalf and respectable attack with some genuine flair. 

The game against England best exemplifies the Bok model. 

Anyhow like I always say the rugby is just a vehicle to having a go. 

Very funny actually!!! 

"

We have never lost at the WC to a northern hemisphere team, except the pool game against the powerful 2003 Pom team"

"Posted by: mozart (29736 posts)

I forgot about that English loss in the pools in  2003.....thanks for the correction, which I have made above."

Well Japan is in the NH too, but I know why we tend to include them with the SH in rugby...so sorry for being pedantic. 

Mozart

When Ackerman was coaching the Lions - some of you claimed that Swys de Bruin was the real coach and that Ackerman only got the credit which in fact was due to De Bruin.

I know you have a mental block on the issue but are you not trumpeting the same story here,  Have you got any proof of it - or are you just letting your dislike of Erasmus getting the upper hand?  

Read what I wrote about the two English tests in the WC series in 2007 and about the problems White brought on himself with a lack of proper planning and allowing the English to dictate the game played in the final - definitely not the credit you seem to give White all the time.   White had some serious defects in game planning - something not in evidence in the case if Erasmus.           

The Bok blueprint is to attack with defence. Who is the architect of that defence? Shall we assume Rassie is a liar when he sings Nienaber's praises? Think before you squawk Herr Dreck. 

Rassie has a team of coaches he put together and developed into one of the finest I have ever seen in SA.  He and Nienaber were close friends since their army days and  they augment each others abilities and has been working together for many years .  

Obviously he would praise the coaching staff and players and get them to an unbelievable  performance level of respect and co-operation.   He is also a gentleman described by Kolisi as selfless.  Definitely  your assumption on the issue is fatally screwed and totally stupid.

What is the meaning of the following:-

"The Bok blueprint is to attack with defence."

How do they score so many tries with only defending????????????   

Augment, that's putting it mildly. How about, "is the backbone Rassie seems to lack". Defence is everything about this team. Too bad we don't have a Nienaber of backplay. Crutches are best in pairs. 

LMAO

Have you ever managed any organization  Dimness?

Have you? I recall you telling me you were an internationally acclaimed businessman...

No I unfortunately never was a Businessman.   I was a Director in Government Service and later wn Secretary and Director of Economic Development in a Local Authority,   Despite that I addressed several international conferences both in SA and in Europe.   Not entirely unknown in KZN- but also rather controversial.

Managed organizations having thousands of employees,   Was a suitably-qualified  HR Manager for many year s and hence my insistence that Managers and coaches must have the respect and loyalty  of the workers and iro rugby the coach should be a good HR person as well.

That is a frightening prospect. I wouldn't trust you to preside over a handful of air. 

Coming from a loony like you - it is indeed a complement,  LMAO  

'HR manager for many yards'.....is this some sort of new fangled HR technique Tokkie?