How embarrassing
So board good old Moz reckons Jake had a tougher WC campaign than Rassie’s second WC
Has to be the most embarrassing moment on this board in the history of the time we have been posting on here
So the genius reckons it was tougher facing England than it was facing Scotland, Ireland, France, England and NZ
I KID YOU NOT
Congratulations Moz you record breaker
Let me refine your statement….I said on paper 2023 was harder, but because of the red card and playing half the final against 14 men, 2007 turned out to be the stiffer challenge:
Bargies tougher than a clueless English team in 2023
England in 2007 tougher than 14 man NZ.
There you go.
Well you are still stupid enough not to comprehend the impact of playing 78 min without a specialist hooker but hey ho - you keep banging that 14 man drum. Not to mention the Boks down to 14 and the pouring rain
But worse than that is telling us the 2007 Argies were better than the 23 England side - rugby ignorance of the highest level
The Argies back then were a 2nd tier side they have only become a real force in the last 5 years or so - fact
You have to be profoundly rugby stupid to even attempt to equate the easiest route to a WC final with the most challenging one
Its on par with trying to convince rugby supporters that Jorrie Muller in theory was as good a 13 as Danie Gerber - literally opposite ends of the spectrum
But good on you Moz for confirming to us how rugby blind you are - it’s embarrassing
England vs Scotland, Ireland, France, England and NZ
Hows that equation balancing for you - I thought you professed to be a mathematician????
More like a fucking magician for that’s the only way that equation begins to balance
Magic Moz has a ring to it
You keep distorting the truth Lucky had every opportunity to select a specialist hooker. And for the last time, both NZ and South Africa had players sent off…..but the net of that was NZ played a man short for 40minutes, netting out the time the Boks were a man short.
Argentina in 2007.
In the pools they beat Ireland 30 points to 15 and France by 17 points to 12. That was the French team that a few weeks later eliminated the All Blacks.
Then they beat Scotland in the QFs by 19 points to 12. When we played them in the semis they had beaten France, Ireland and Scotland and not even been close to losing a match . At the close of the pools they had the 4th best points differential in the tournament.
Your ignorance shines bright.
That Argie side better than the current England side? Fuck me that is funny
Your comrade Buttplug rates this English side above Ireland and France right now
Can’t say I agree but it’s a good English side - certainly better than the 2007 Argie side
Back the Ireland and France were nothing compare to their current sides
Jakes WC was the easiest in the history of the tournament while Rassie’s last one was the toughest - FACT
It’s not the current English side, it’s the 2023 English side with a different coach. Not a settled team at all. The 2023 English team:
Lost to Scotland in the 6N…29 to 23
Lost to France in the 6N…53 to 10
Lost to Fiji by 30 points to 22
Lost to Ireland ….29 to 16
Lost to Wales….20 to 9
Lost to Ireland 29 to 10
Lost to South Africa 16 to 15
Of their 7 losses they did best against the Boks. Hell even Wales whipped them by a bigger margin,
Do try to keep up and do look up a few facts before you come with the -Fact nonsense. Those are the facts,
Dr Lucky played a weak English team and 14 NZ men for half the match and he beat both of them by a single point.
Moz, this man treats facts like tackle bags. Charges straight at them, gets flattened, and then wonders why it hurts.
Um the core is the same side with Borthwick now the coach - he is hardly a world beater
So you are wrong - try again
Argentina back in 2007 were nothing compare to what they are now
Back then they were 2nd tier
Argentina in 2007 were exceptionally well-drilled and deceptively dangerous. They were tactically astute, with a clever kicking game that consistently turned defences by putting the ball in behind the midfield, then powering over in the collisions. Their forwards gave them a platform few sides could disrupt, scrum and lineout were rock solid, and their rolling maul was brutally efficient. Their defence was disciplined, organised, and suffocating; they trusted their systems and made opposition sides work for every inch.
This was probably the last Argentina side with truly world-class set pieces across the board, anchored by a hard-nosed pack. Today’s Pumas are marginally more potent ball in hand, but 2007 combined power with pragmatism in a way that made them formidable. Add Felipe Contepomi’s control, Juan Martín Hernández’s tactical kicking, and a ruthless counterattack, and you had a side built to bloody the nose of any “favourite.”
So yes, before the tournament, it was understandable that people looked at New Zealand, Ireland, and France as frontrunners. But Dawie, after 18 years, you’d think hindsight might have finally reached you.
YAWN
How can I be wrong when that side lost to France by more than NZ’s record loss last weekend? I ask with tears in my eyes. Mac has nailed your problem Dave you try to blunderbuss your way through facts.
But now you are schooled and perhaps you can put our 3 one point wins in better perspective.
One game does not define a side - the Argies in 2007 were pretty average - 2nd tier
The current England side is a far better side
Jakes side only faced one top tier country, Rassie’s faced 5
Do the maths
And beat Samoa by one point…..and lost to Fiji by 30 points to 22. I missed that one but I’ve now added it to the list above. Give up man they were a debacle and we beat them by 1 point.
Bullshit there has never been a poor English side
They came good when iit counted in that WC
The Argies in 2007 were regarded as a 2nd tier side back then
Hahaha….sure Dave. You just can’t accept reality A team that lost 7 matches, lost to Fiji, got thrashed by 43 points by France….we only scored 43 points last week and everybody accepts it’s a NZ disaster.
Never mind, live in your fantasy world, it’s a constant source of amusement.
What’s amusing is you even suggesting that Jake’s only worthy opponents being England can begin to compare with Rassie side having to face Scotland, Ireland, France, England and NZ
Its seriously embarrassing on a rugby front
97 to 39 plays 57 to 54…..and wins. What’s embarrassing is a high school player posing as a rugby guru.
What is wrong with you? Why the fuck do you keep banging on about a high school player?
Did my post school not sink in?
But let’s just forget about me as a player - what the fuck does that have to do with my grasp of the game decades later?
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot - it’s pretty obvious that a large points differential points to an easier set of matches? But somehow how you reference this as your victory
That is very funny - thanks for providing further confirmation of your tenuously fragile position
Wrong again….a high points differential can be the result of a superior team, or poor opposition. It proves nothing in itself. Did the record win against NZ prove we were just an ordinary team?
The Argies in 2007 were regarded as a 2nd tier side back then
I guess Ireland was a 2nd tier side back then too. So too France. Because Argentina clean sweeped both of them 2007 (beat Ireland 3x, France 2x), plus this is where the rankings stood at the end of the year. Pretty handy for a "second tier".
As at 31 December, 2007
1 South Africa
2 New Zealand
3 Argentina
4 England
5 Australia
6 France
7 Ireland
8 Scotland
9 Fiji
10 Wales
I am really amazed by the above BS on Kolisi. It is a fact admtted tha there are leadership in any team of hich the captains decisionmaing is made by the captain and team leadrership players on the whole. The captain is the public face of the team in communication with the media and the public,
Mozart is an idiot i he does not know the above fact - what is real is the Springboks won mre trophie that any other team since the start of the professional era in 1996 in th period since 2019. Kolisi role was important to since it represet the end of th e ineffective farce caused by quta selections.
The fact is Kolisi had a majotr impact in enhancing Rug and produce many quality players in tht regard and cuased a massie support abse and player siurces unavaiable in the past - a major component in the present rugby scenario in SA.
So now back to Kolisi's performance as a player, I believe he ws performing well enough to make his selection as a player and the fact is Mozart deccide ased o the joke ESPN stats he is not so. Another farce Mozart regularly came up is who won tests. In the 209 it was first Beast - followed by Mostert and finally the real MOM Vermeulen/
Hwever - in spreading shot to teh contrary Mozart forget rugby is a tamgame not an indivdual player game smf yjr om-fi;d decisions rests wth the leadership gtopu of players of the team. In hsi silliness Mozart referred to the Fiji game - and forget about the Tonga Round Robin game where the Tongas until minute 70 was leading in the test and the Springboks were saved by decisionmaking of the leadership group on the field; So lets go further and state that Mozart never admitted to the fact that White;s game plan for the 2007 final did not include - according to Smit himself - had any provision for strategies to be used to score tries in the match. That was one fo the reasons that led to White' coach termination at the end of 2007 and 18 ears later he was fired by the Bulsl or exactly te same reason.
I agree thus far this year Kolisi shows similar signs replicaed by other older players as well - but that does not mean he was a good enough 6 since 2018. He was a good enough player and an excellent public face of the team that caused massive growth of rugby as a sport in SA.
. . . .
. . . . . . .
.
Exactly, well put together. Don't forget Kolisi got carded and could have been a red card but got the lucky end.
Louw was the major contributing factor when he came on and got stuck in. Having to clean up his mess.
Now we see kwagga playing the same role
Thick shits prevail
Vermeulen was the man who led the Springboks to victory. He was the player who led by example and motivated the players.
As he still does even in his current position.
End of story.
Bullshit
Mozart
Let me eplain soemt hing every rugby bar you seems to know. It wnet back to the 1999 Rwc where England was aeavily favoired as the winners with what was by a distance the strongest team in te tournament and the number 1 ranked team in World Rugby, That sae team went throgh to the 2003 RWC and wonm it easily. However what happened after the 200.3 RWC was thata ge caught up woth some players and at the start of the 2007 RWC was ranled as the number 7 raned team in he world - with SA being ranked no 5 in the world,
I can remember sitting in a bar adjacent to the Montpellier stadium where the Springboks were palying later and cheered for the Arenone team evey point they scored, A Fench supporter came oer to em and asked me I support the Argentine team and my comment was that If Argemtoma beat do wish for the Springboks to play the USA after the Irish mtach nd that head of the Irish match and France in the potential semi-final. To be quite frank the Spingbok team put up some real shit performances against Tonga and Fiji and in the end we played the England rugby geriatrixs team. That final was the last test of as far as I can remember 10 of the 15 starting players,
To claim that in 2007 the Springboks played a top class team in the final is plain and utter shit. At the start of the tournamen they were the number 7 team in the world. In ny event in RWC history smce 2000 when tehr anling syste was introduced where RWC winners did not had to play only teams ranked below them in the rankings and ended up winning in the tournament without playing higher ranked teams in the whole tournament and ended up winning he Cup.
Your comments showed no interests in facts and 100% prejudice.