Siya Kolisi helped win the WC

That seems to be the prevailing view.  But what are the facts? There were 5 knockout matches that were competitive, I leave out the Japanese hammering in 2019.

Wales 2019…..Kolisi was subbed in minute 69 when the score was 16 to 16. His absence ensured our win because Louw made the crucial turnover leading to the winning penalty. Final score 19/16. Score after Kolisi left 3/0.

England 2019….Kolisi subbed in minute 64. The Boks were ahead 18/12 and the match wasn’t won. Final score 32/12. Score after Kolisi left 14/0.

France 2023….Kolisi subbed in minute 46, the Boks were behind  19/22. The final score the Boks won 29/28. Score after Kolisi left 10/6.

England 2023….Kolisi subbed in minute 51. The score was Boks behind 6/12. Final score Boks win 16/15. Score after Kolisi left 10/3.

New Zealand ….Kolisi subbed in minute 73…the score 12/11 which was also the final score. In at least 3 of these games, Wales, France and England we won the match after he left the park.

In aggregate we were 71 /73 with Kolisi on the park and 37/9 after he left the park. Clearly there were other factors at play. For example Pollard coming on and making his kicks. But it’s very hard to argue Kolisi was essential to our WC wins. In every match the victory was in doubt when he left the park. 

And in every match except NZ we did markedly better after he was subbed.

Kolisi leading us to WC victory is a pleasant fiction.

More assertions, more balls….against Ireland he did nothing as well. You’re just a groupie Dave, believing everything you are fed.

Take the first Irish test…here’s your great 6:

Wynand Claasen....Francois Pienaar...

I think you are a bit unfair on Kolisi, in that World Cup final he played his best game for the boks ever. Making big hits, gaining meters with ball in hand and even poaching a ball or two. He had a great World Cup final in 2019. 

However, all the other games he would either stay in the tram lines or never look to steal the ball. Just watch at ruck time, he is there, but he doesn't compete, he just shifts away from the ruck, and he will shift wider to move away from the contact zone. 

His play stats are really poor too. 

https://all.rugby/player/siya-kolisi

But when he is on for an entire game the boks tend to lose

The big winning factor for the Boks was the Bomb Squad.  Obviously things improved when they came on.

WC final 2019, he had a strong  defensive game….along with the whole Bok pack…..Etzebeth, Vermeulen , Malherbe, DudToit and Mostert were all terrific on defense.

On attack here are his stats, he made 7 metres while conceding one turnover. If you assign  a turnover 20 metres, his running efforts lost us a net 13  meters .

You bet 3 runs for 7 metres and a fumbled ball. A total myth.

He did do a good national anthem, that was as good as it always is.

The Kolisi myth string resurfaced

One has to be pretty stupid to believe firstly that Kolisi as a player somehow handicaps the side while he is on the field - it’s actually fucking pathetic given how good he is

But equally it’s pretty bloody stupid believing a captain being subbed brings into question his leadership status

One would swear that the likes of Eben, PSDT, Bongi, Jessie and Pollard did not have the leadership credentials to lead for the final 20 to 30 minutes of a game

Kolisi reminds me of Damian de Allende—still waiting for that elusive breakout test. As a forward, he’s more liability than asset. In all his test matches, I can count only a handful of genuine contributions, and he’s never been the kind of player to change a game or deliver a decisive moment. He was a flat line in both World Cup finals.

In the previous cycle, he was guilty of multiple throat slams and spear tackles that somehow went unpunished. Referees seemed reluctant to act—especially after Erasmus played the race card with World Rugby, which gave Kolisi an untouchable aura. He’s essentially been a face for representation rather than a force on the field.

As a player, he’s just a body in a jersey—never close to the level of Louw, Brussow, or Kwagga. Louw in particular was the one who saved the 2019 campaign, not Kolisi.

To rate him better than Springbok players such as Classens, Pienaar and Schalk is just plain stupid and biased.

Kolisi will never ever be in the same class as those mentioned.

Plain and simple for those of us who do not have any current family ties and witnessed their great effort's while at the same time held down occupations that provided for their families.

Mozart

The ESPN stats is totally useless as a player evalaution norm. There is an intricate system of player evaluation tracking every player on the field of play and that system determine team selection. The system was availablale and bought by SA Rugby - but both Meyer and Coetzee refused to use it - while White did not use it when he coached the Bulls,

Erasmus had Jones appointed in 2018 to help wih actual professional evaluation of player performances, When England contracted him he thought he eould be as useful as to player selections as he was in 2018. and 2019 - but he culd not help England in that regard and returned to SA in March 2025.

The system is not 100% full proof and Willie's selectionas at full back caused the loss by the Springboks the first test against the AB 's.

However, the ESPN stats are plain amateur BS - so why do you not spend $50 000 and get the advanced computer system. You can then tell us what the real performance evaluation situation is. Your present evaluation is utter BS supreme.

. ,

Kolisi is a far far better rugby player than Pienaar and in particular Classen who was bloody average

Schalk would be closer but I’d take Kolisi over Schalk as a player

As for leadership I’d take Kolisi all day long based on how he is received the world over as none of us are privy to the leadership on the field sitting on our couches

WC knockouts when Kolisi is on the field…..71 points to 73 by our opponents.

WC knockouts when Kolisi was not on the field …37 points to 9 by our opponents.

That is about 360 minutes where we played with 14 1/2 men vs 15 men. Half a man for 40 minutes is worth 5 points according to the one big statistical study of card effects. So if the Boks had a full 15 men on the team for 360 minutes, they would have had 9x5=45 more points. So the scores would have been 116 points to 73.

That looks much more like the margin you’d expect from a WC winner and close but not quite at the level we did achieve when Kolisi wasn’t there.

In 2007 knockouts Jake won by 90 points to 39, but he had Schalk at 6, not a ghost who appears occasionaly.

Good old Jake had the easiest WC ever - he only had to play one top tier side the whole competition - England

Well Jake beat the English team with a core of the WC winning 2003 team by 15 points to 6, having crushed them by 36 points to nil in the pool match. Dr Lucky courtesy of Pollard beat the English team that beat Samoa by 1 point in the pools and Fiji by 6 points in the QF’s by 1 single point.

Thanks for bringing that up….case closed.

Good old Jake only had to play England - by some distance the easiest WC ever and that’s a FACT

Contrast that with Rassie’s last WC - by far the toughest WC ever. He had to play Ireland, Scotland, France, England and NZ to win it

Let me guess in your warped mind Jake’s challenge was far harder?

Bwahaaahaaahaaaa

But England was a far tougher opponent in 2007 than 2023…..and I dare say a tougher opponent than 14 man NZ.

Still we digress the numbers are clear as crystal, we do better when Kolisi is back on the bench.

Bullshit were England tougher back then but you miss the obvious point - Jake only had to play England, you seem to be missing the fact Rassie had to play Scotland, Ireland, France, England and NZ to win it

Are you saying Jake had a tougher campaign than Rassie? A simple yes or no will do

No deflections, just a yes or no

Yes or no?

But you’re missing the point he lost to Ireland and played NZ with 14 men. The French game was the big hurdle that was cleared.

Yes or no?

You really want a yes or no?

I do

Surely you would be served better by context, exploring the grey areas, not simply a yes or a no.

No not at all as it’s not even a close call it’s so obvious that it only requires a yes or no

There are no grey areas between the easiest campaign ever and the toughest one

If we were comparing Rassie’s first WC to Jake’s then yes a little debate would be merited but not his second WC as it’s opposite ends of the spectrum

So all I want is a yes or no from you

Was Jake’s WC campaign tougher than Rassie’s second campaign - yes or no?

Luckily pools don’t matter otherwise we’d be out after Ireland.

France clearly tougher than Fiji

Bargies harder than a clueless English team who could hardly beat Samoa

England harder than a 14 man NZ team.

It’s close, I’d say on paper 2023 was harder, but in practice 2007 was as difficult. Add to that the margins Jake wins by 90 points to 39 vs Lucky in 2023 wins by 57 points to 54. And the verdict is clear.

"Passenger my arse he is one of our best 6’s ever certainly better than Pienaar, Schalk etc"

Whahahahahahahaha!!!!

Moz a simple yes or no

Argies back then better than England???? What an insult

You still don’t get the Boks without a specialist hooker for 78min, the fact the Boks had 14 for 20min and it was pissing with rain - you are clueless

You do realise that Jake’s higher win margin is evidence of an easier campaign? Oops!!

But ultimately I’m just wanting a yes or no - to establish whether you have some credibility or are just plain rugby stupid for the board to see

Yes or no?

The Bargies beat France twice in the 2007 campaign. They were better than the clueless English team we made look good in 2023 by not playing rugby.

And you still don’t get the Boks were a man up for a net 40minutes, which is worth 10 points.

The verdict is clear. Do you agree, yes or no