Springbok Record Comparison

PRE-ISOLATION

TOTAL
Played: 174
Win: 112 (64.4%)
Loss: 47 (27.0%)
Draw: 15 (8.6%)
Tries For: 392
Tries Against: 209 

HOME
Played: 112 (64.4%)
Win: 72 (64.3%)
Loss: 30 (26.8%)
Draw: 10 (8.9%)
Tries For: 250
Tries Against: 136 

AWAY
Played: 62
Win: 40 (64.5%)
Loss: 17 (27.4%)
Draw: 5 (8.1%)
Tries For: 142
Tries Against: 73 

Boks vs Die Schwarzewelle

TOTAL
Played: 37
Win: 20 (54.1%)
Loss: 15 (40.5%)
Draw: 2 (5.4%)
Tries For: 49
Tries Against: 50

HOME
Played: 20
Win: 14 (70.0%)
Loss: 5 (25.0%)
Draw: 1 (5.0%)
Tries For: 24
Tries Against: 18 

AWAY
Played: 17 (45.9%)
Win: 6 (35.3%)
Loss: 10 (58.8%)
Draw: 1 (5.9%)
Tries For: 25
Tries Against: 32  

POST-ISOLATION

TOTAL
Played: 317
Win: 193 (60.9%)
Loss: 116 (36.6%)
Draw: 8 (2.5%)
Tries For: 983
Tries Against: 590 

HOME
Played: 141
Win: 102 (72.3%)
Loss: 35 (24.8%)
Draw: 4 (2.8%)
Tries For: 512
Tries Against: 260 

AWAY
Played: 145
Win: 67 (46.2%)
Loss: 74 (51.0%)
Draw: 4 (2.8%)
Tries For: 471
Tries Against: 330 

NEUTRAL
Played: 31
Win: 24 (77.4%)
Loss: 7 (22.6%)
Draw: 0 (0.0%)
Tries For: 128
Tries Against: 33 

Boks vs Die Schwarzewelle

TOTAL
Played: 60
Win: 16 (26.7%)
Loss: 43 (71.7%)
Draw: 1 (1.7%)
Tries For: 102
Tries Against: 172 

HOME
Played: 30
Win: 11 (36.7%)
Loss: 19 (63.3%)
Draw: 0 (0.0%)
Tries For: 62
Tries Against: 89 

AWAY
Played: 27
Win: 4 (14.8%)
Loss: 22 (81.5%)
Draw: 1 (3.7%)
Tries For: 40
Tries Against: 83 

NEUTRAL
Played: 3
Win: 1 (33.3%)
Loss: 2 (66.7%)
Draw: 0 (0.0%)
Tries For: 1
Tries Against: 5

Thanks Organhuffer,   Poor moo moo was, it looks like, in a state of denial about us being a better side than the wee abs pre isolation.

Post isolation the Boks have faced many well documented obstacles.

Pre-Isolation: 90 years
Post-Isolation: 27 years

Actually Aug, first test ever was in 1921, so 71 years in pre-isolation (and use your own dodgy Japie refs....) period.

The first ever Bok test was in 1891.

Keep schooling moo moo Organhuffer but be warned he is starting off from a very low base!

Not against the ABs it wasn't! First test 1921.

Stats still don't lie Hasbeeno, the Boks are WAY behind!

Think Brick wall Hasbeeno and then feel the lump on your forehead......

You incorrectly corrected accurate information. 

You incorrectly support an inferior team.....

Hey moo mooo ask somebody to explain pre and post isolation to you. 

Moo moo has no clue whatsoever. 

I think the home and away win ratios pre isolation blows poor moo moos theory about home refs out of the water. 

Also shows that the post isolation loss record has something to do with the get the Japie campaign.

Nothing appears to supports ou moo moos vacuous arguments. 

Incorrectly? Was I not born in South Africa? Shall I "correctly" support New Zealand? I could imagine my exchanges with a native: 

La Moi: Hey bru, doze All Bleks ist lekker gut
Faumunina [All Blek Supporter]: Yoo isn't even from here ya turncoat
La Moi: Sies man! I support duh All Blekkies quite correctly
Faumunina [All Blek Supporter]: Jeez louise, I almost committed a hate crime, my apologies mate

You're better than this forced disagreeableness Moolaa, but at the very least, thanks for the laugh. 

Hahahahaha very funny Organhuffer! 

More than half Boks losses post -isolation have been against  Die Schwarzewelle , 19 losses out of 35.

The funny part is nobody is disputing that post Isolation the Boks have floundered losing even to Japan. The dismal performances of the Boks on many occasions has been discussed repeatedly and the reason analyzed. 

Dispite all this moo moo insists the post isolation and pre isolation periods are the same and must be lumped together. If of course he knows what pre and post mean. 

POST-ISOLATION

Interestingly, the Boks have lost 15 tests by 7 points or less. That's good enough to shift the scales between the two sides:

TOTAL
Played: 60
Win: 31 (51.6%)
Loss: 28 (47.6%)
Draw: 1 (1.7%)

There have been many tests where the Boks really shot themselves in the foot. Some of these are the...

1. 2012 Dunedin test
2. 2010 Joburg test
3. 2014 Wellington test
4. 2015 Ellis Park and Twickenham tests
5. 2001 Newlands test
6. 2004 Christchurch test 
7. 2005 Dunedin test
8. 2007 Kings Park test

1. The Boks have never beaten NZ at Loftus post isolation in 4 attempts.
2. Their most successful venue is Ellis Park, despite the fact that the All Blacks usually score around 30 points. 
3. The All Blacks have scored 30+ points 21 times; 10 in SA, 11 in NZ.
4. The Bok record for consecutive home losses was broken by Rassie's Boks last year. Currently 4 losses, dating back to 2015's Ellis Park test. 
5. The Bok's longest losing run away from home was 10 tests. Between 1999's 28-0 loss at Dunedin to 2008's 19-8 loss at Wellington. 
6. The Wellington win last year ended an 8 test losing streak in NZ
7. The worst record against New Zealand belongs to Coetzee. During his tenure, the Boks conceded 26 tries in 4 tests, which eclipses the 22 the Boks conceded during the 4 year span of Jake, 9 tests.
8. The worst scoring record also belongs to Coetzee, scoring 4 tries in 4 tests. This is also eclipsed by the 21 tries scored under Jake.

Which numbers do you dispute? I have a log of every Springbok test, including lineups for South Africa in those tests.

EDIT

After apartheid, the Boks lost 3 consecutive tests followed by a draw. They then beat NZ in the 1995 WC. They then lost 4 out of 5 tests in 1996 and lost both tests in 1997. They did beat NZ back to back in 1998. They lost both 1999 TN tests but won the WC encounter. Between July 2000 to August 2004 the Boks won 2 in 11 tests, losing 8 consecutive tests. 2005 saw them win 1 then lose 1. 2006 was 2-1 in NZ's favour. 2007 was 2-0 in NZ's favour. Between July 2008 until September 2009 the Boks had their strongest results, winning 4 of 6 tests, winning all three tests in the 2009 TNs. From July 2010 until present day the Boks have won 3 in 19 tests. 

Paint this bullshit whatever way you want but it does not change the facts.

A bit like you guys fantasising that you have a 10 inch phallus but t he reality hits home when you look at it in the mirror and realise that it it cannot even be seen.

BLOW-HARDS 

Lets forget the past and look at what happened in the past decade.   That was the worst period fpr the Springboks and we must look at the three worst coaches the Springboks ever had - De Villiers, Meyer and Coetzee to see what and why it happened.  

Much better records - what a farce.    Erasmus did not lose a home game against Argentina - neither a game against the likes of Japan.   Meyer also lost ALL the games in the 2015  Rugby Championship.   At least Erasmus'  team did something which Meyer never achieved - an away win against the AB's.

Why don't you think before you write tripe on site?  

José Erasmus, chief parker of the tractor, is currently sitting at 50% wins. That's 7 in 14 tests. Meyer won 9 in 13 tests in his first season, without a glut of players. He won the England series after only two training sessions with a team that just lost Victor, Smit, Du Preez, Butch, Rossouw, Bakkies, Fourie, Schalk, Muller et al. Legends of Bok rugby. He proceeded to keep the Boks at #2 for most of his tenure. In fact, for his first 30 tests, only New Zealand could beat the Boks. Meyer ended with a 66% win percentage, which leaves him ahead of 13 of the other 20 coaches to lead the Boks. Not bad. 

To make matters worse for you, Rassie lost to Wales twice, England twice, Australia once, New Zealand once and Argentina once. He was out-coached in what will forever be the most significant moment of his tenure, the home loss to New Zealand. He was out-coached by Ledesma, out-coached by Cheika and we saw the Boks looking completely bereft of ideas throughout the EOYT. A tour which could have looked so different had the much maligned Louw not thrice won crucial turnovers to keep the Boks in with a faint hope when France were certain to kill the game. 

Organhuffer Rassie started from scratch. Could easily have beaten wee abs twice. 

Let's see how his WIN averages looks post RWC.

No more nonsense about Rassie please Huffer!

Thanks. 

He didn't start from scratch. I dealt with that here: https://www.ruckersforum.com/forum/augen%C3%B6ffner/starting-from-scratch-/28189

AO

The stupid idiot at it again.  Beat England twice  - but the top village idiot om site mentioned only the two losses. 

And in three of the tests  lost Erasmus used a lot of new players to try them out in a  test environment and virtually all the newbies failed that test.

The one Wales test was in Washington against Wales and the team comprised of only five recognized Springbok players,   The test in June last year against England happened after England lost the test after some experimental changes were made to the team.

In the November test could have been a draw if Esterhuizen did have a brain fart and isolated himself in the final move in the game. 

Fact   is the team was competitive even when they lost the games, while the same can never be said about Meyer and the other idiotic coaches..  And they actually scored many more tries than the teams scored in the first Meyer and Coetzee years as coaches. . 

01.Boks vs Wales
The first test was by far his most experimental. The Welsh test. It has to be said that this team performed better than the Bok side later in he year. I don't have much of a problem with the performance as I do with the loss at the end of the season. 

Debutants: Nche, Jenkins, Kwagga, van Zyl, Mapimpi, Esterhuizen, Ismaiel, Notshe, Thomas du Toit, Akker, Orie, Papier, Robert du Preez.

Not a bad roster of available talent. That is already more depth than what was available as frontline depth in 2012's England series. The obvious flubs were Kwagga and Roberts. The rest held up well. 

Recognisable Players: Ralapelle, Wilco Louw, Steph, Mohoje, Jantjies, Kriel, Kitshoff

02.Boks vs England 1
Debutants: RG Snyman, Dyantyi, Nkosi.

03.Boks vs England 2
Debutants: None

04.Boks vs England 3
Debutants: None

It should be noted that England were experimenting with entirely new attacking systems. Some things I haven't actually seen from any other team. So, whilst the Boks may have been blooding some new talent in the first test with some less experienced test players, England were rebuilding their game. As it turns out, England ended the season heading in the right direction.

Of the new players, how many were core Boks? Dyantyi, Esterhuizen, Mapimpi, Nkosi and RG were the most prevalent. In the link I provided, I broke down Rassie's entire roster usage completely. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You claim that Rassie's Boks were more competitive than a team which ended the season with only 3 losses in 13 tests? Rassie lost 7 in 14. How do you determine his team was more competitive? They were blown away Los Pumas, bumbled in Brisbane, miraculously soaked up a lopsided and reckless attacking All Black side, blew their best performance of the season at home against New Zealand, floundered throughout the EOYT. The only good performance on tour was against Scotland. Not only did Rassie have a large glut of blooded players at hand, but a new surge of next-gen players ready to cut their teeth at the next level. He still produced lesser results. 

Yes, the Boks did beat England twice, but which two tests did the English win? The last two. As per Andre? It was Papier's poor service  - bouncing along the ground - which allowed the English to swarm up on the outside and cut him off. He ran into the open space on the opposite side of the ruck. We would have still had possession had Andre not been take out with a shoulder to the head. Here's the interesting thing however: When did England take the lead? It was through Damian's bizarre infringement at the breakdown. After England scored those 3 points, they ran rampant, scything the Boks apart. Damian was not only floundering with front foot ball all of the first half and well into the second, he was the turning point. So no, it was Damian's brain fart which condemned the Boks. 

Meyer lost 5 tests in his first 30. His Boks were #2. Right now, Rassie has the Boks playing the most limited game since Straeuli, well behind the rest of the top 12 nations. He has been outcoached in most big tests. 

Your link and thinking are as per normal total delusion and cloud 9 thinking,    How many of the 30 tests under Meyer were games   against low rated countries?   An what do you try and do here again.  Writing total BS s an achievement only you can ever realize.    

Your link and thinking are as per normal total delusion and cloud 9 thinking,    How many of the 30 tests under Meyer were games   against low rated countries?   An what do you try and do here again.  Writing total BS s an achievement only you can ever realize.    

In Meyer's first year, the weakest team was Scotland. Though not very "weak". In his second year, he faced Italy once and Scotland twice. Italy weren't very strong, though tough and niggly. In year three, Italy were much improved, so much so that they blew the fan favourites such as Goosen, Lambie, Reinach, Marcell Coetzee, Serfontein and Lood apart. Pollard was the hero. There were no "easy" tests in year three. I bet you were crossing fingers for Georgia, Namibia et al to inflate stats. 

They also faced Samoa in his second year.   That is conveniently forgotten.    Pollard started playing tests in 2014 and the fact is that the main handicap in the team was Steyn - Goosen was NO T involved in any tests in 2013 and 2014..   

The rot in your mind is incredible and time to go and look for further assistance again.   All the players you listed were better than the junk you always support.

Lood was by some distance the best SA lock in 2015 WC - and was considered at one stage as the player of the series.   He was top class in the WC series - did you miss all the tests in that' series?

Must have since you claimed Matfield was the top SA lock.  

He had one good half against Scotland - they shut him down in the second. He had two runs against Japan. What else? Player of the series? 

Eben was SA's best lock. 

Lood is too slow, too slow limbed, has exceedingly poor hands, poor stamina and the tackle radius of a jaffa cake - as we found out against New Zealand. Big moments, he is nowhere to be found. Another flub. He hasn't gotten better with time. His one good half against Scotland essentially boiled down to him being in the middle of the field. The Boks employed a tight middle press to flush the Scots out wide and prevent them from laying a platform down in the middle of the field. He defended shoulder to shoulder, concealing his poor mobility. Once space appeared, back to being ordinary. This flub wasn't in the top 20 best players of the tournament. 

:Lood is to slow - too limited.  Your opinion counts for zero in that case.  It is amazing how you can criticize players - bearing in mind your total  lack of understanding of the game of rugby and the fact that whatever you come up with is of zero value.