No comments - I am surprised'
Combined team composition:-
Full backs - Joubert and Montgomery
Wings - Habana, Paulse, Kolbe, Mapimpi, Williams
Centers - De Allende, Venter, Am
Flyhalfs - Pollard, Stranski
Scrummies - Van der Westhuizen, De Klerk
No 8 - Vermeuelen
No 7 - Du Toit
No 6 - Burger, Pienaar, Kolisi
Locks - Etzebeth, Andrews, Botha
Props - Malherbe, Beast, Kitshof, Du Rand
Hooker - Mbonambi, Marx
Pick a combined team from the above.
Ball handling in 2019 was poor. Handling errors were plentiful, which is why Rassie preferred to key the ball out of the hands, keep it in the air and up field, and have the defence apply pressure. The 2007 English team was unbalanced in the group stage meeting: The 10-12 combination of Catt and Farrell was a spectacular failure. That English side did grow stronger as the competition progressed, and possessed maybe the last real power-pack England have fielded since that time. They were immense at the breakdown in the final, which helped them take the sting out of our immense strike power. If we have to rank the wins in terms of quality of personnel, coaching and opposition, it would be 2007, 1995 and 2019 (1995 being much more similar to each other). The 95 Boks had an aging yet still fearsome Wallaby side to contend with, and defeated them; the Boks of 2019 lost to New Zealand having been held at arms length the entire encounter. The 1995 had a legendary foe in the final and a pretty-intense arm-wrestle in the semi. I'll say that Rassie is a better coach than Kitch, who was even less of a technician of the game (as confirmed by Joost on an ESPN interview around 2002). He basically had home advantage and a loaded team that came together at the right time, resonating with the people.
Kindergarten Imbecile
Which game did you watch? Your ranking is as expected based on total BS, The 2007 team was by a distance the worst performing team of the three. They struggled in the Round Robin games and their performance in the final was putrid and I mentioned examples why,
Losing ball possession at breakdowns and poor ball handling and defense was what could have caused a loss against the poor English team. The scrumming was average and kicking game was as bad as Morne's - aimless and inaccurate - giving the English the opportunity to counter-attack. If the 2007 team had to play the 2019 English team they would have lost by at least 20 points, because the Springboks defense was unstructured and haphazard.
Duplicate
Duplicate
Joubert
Kolbe
Jacques Fourie (JdeV if he wasn’t hurt)
Frans Steyn
Habana
Pollard
Joost
Beast
Marx
Malherbe
Etzebeth
Victor
Juan Smith
Schalk Burger
Vermeulen
The 2007 Boks are the best WC team we've ever had, and would wallop the current side with ease.
15. Willie
14. Kolbe
13. Mulder
12. de Allende
11. Habana
10. Pollard
9. Joost
1. Os
2. Marx
3. Malherbe
4. Bakkies
5. Etzebeth
6. Kolisi
7. PSDT
8.Vermeulen
Kindergarten Imbecile
One has to look at all three finals objectively, The 2007 did not dominate anything and struggled against the worst England team that ever reached the WC final. I mentioned certain aspects of the game where the 2007 team failed and those were real problems - not imagiined ones.
Any SA side that struggled against Tonga and Fiji and then had to play a team of England consisting of hasbeens is not the best WC squad SA had - fact is they were the poorest of the three squads.
Mozart
Just how did Fransiue managed to get into your team, Him missing four tackless in the final - the worst miss was on Tait - and losing two balls when tackled - can never be off-\set by the one long range penalty he converted.
Incidentally looking at the final only - Burger and Smith was dominated by the English loosies in the 2007 final at breakdowns specifically, Both in fact vanished from prominence in a team who did not cover themselves in glory at breakdowns - ball protection and recovery was not their stock in trade in the final. Career-wise both were good loosies - but not in the final where their performances were not good enough.
Matfield made a big contribution in the tackle on Tait - his two line-outs steals put Du Preez under pressure due to inaccuracy and his defective Tight 5 contribution did cause problems for the team. On the whole the English team forwards in 2007 to an extent was superior to the Springboks at breakdowns and even in scrums - unlike in 2019 when the forwards dominated the much better and higher-rated English team who beat the All Blacks convincingly in the semi.
The main problem for the English team in 2007 was the fact that the team consisted of too many over-the-hill players over 30 years of age - who effectively was ill-disciplined ass well, The one typical example was the possession loss by the Springboks when in the only case where the 2007 team cane near to scoring a try against the English and the Springbok forwards were not strong enough to put pressure on the resultant scrum that followed.
Saffy picks maybe the weakest loose forward combo possible 
Definitely not the combination that vanished from sight in the 2007 final. Thy were completely outplayed by the England loosies.
Quite frankly I saw the final and did not realize how shoddy the game really was compared to the 1995 and 2019 finals. It was only when I took a hard look at the three finals that I realize why the Springboks could not score tries and how deficient their breakdown play really was.
It was not only in defense that they came short - it was especially in scrumming and breakdowns where they were deficient, If the 2007 Springboks came up against the 2019 Springboks they would be destroyed worse than what would have happened if the 2019 English team played them,
The 2007 Springboks were lucky - in the final they played a team of real rugby geriatrics - most players inclusive of Wilkinson was way past their sell-by date, There 2019 team was much stronger than the 2007 team was - et they were demolished by the Springboks.
2019 Springboks were lucky in the final they played a team that thought they were already World Champions.
New Zealand was lucky in 2011 that France got the short end of the refereeing decisions.
New Zealand was lucky in 2015 that Lomp and Dud Allende made crucial defensive blunders that gifted the game to NZ
Everybody who wins does so with an element of luck. The 2007 team defeated the prior World Champions twice....once with back play, once with conservative tactics designed to give a result.
Omelette coming from you that means about as much as a dogs turd
Nice one Moz, the Boks were lucky because England thought they had already won the final
Man that is horseshit - imagine any side underestimating the Boks at any time let alone a WC final and not to mention the fact that England has a dismal record against the Bok
No luck in it at all - it was a master stroke by a very astute coach blessed with a very good side
We would beat that England side 9 times out of 10 if we played them
The Boks are a far better side coached by a great coach. Certainly the best coach of the three SA World Cup winning coaches - Kitch in the middle, Jake last
From the Guardian:
Warren Gatland was right about England after all. They played their “final” against the All Blacks and what struck me most is that their defeat by South Africa was so similar, just in reverse. Just as England stopped the All Blacks
.......
And that same All Blacks team beat the Boks a few weeks before. It was pretty much down to luck and motivation on the day. The luck was when Sinkler departed and Old King Cole couldn’t scrum.
And it wasn’t the non contest some claim, if the Poms had managed to get over the line in their 5 minute goal line assault at the end of the first half, the result may have been reversed.
Oh what utter rubbish
Sinkler is the weaker of the scrummagers, so Cole should have strengthened their scrum
No side is EVER under prepared for a final or would ever underestimate their opponents in a WC final
To infer otherwise is insulting to all rugby followers
We did not beat the Poms in the final we absolutely thrashed them - something that has never happened in a final before
We thrashed them because everyone of our players from 1 to 23 were and are better than the English players and our coach is better
Mapimpi lost us the game against NZ but our route to the final and that final win took that Bok side to the next level. Had we played the AB’s again a week after the WC final we would have beaten them
No that’s naive. Losing their tight head minutes into the game was a big negative. Their scrum which was fine against NZ, was a disaster, a big contributor to their loss.
If we played NZ a week later they would have been highly motivated and likely winners. What would have happened in a Bok/NZ final is more interesting.. and there I’d say it was about 50/50.
As for the notion that we are on some kind of up curve, we barely scraped past Wales 19 to 16.....whereas NZ crushed them 40 to 17 a week later.
The truth is the Boks always seem to fear NZ and underperform, with a few rare exceptions. The latest example being the craven Rassie chicken run.
We matched NZ until the quota grasped our game both on a playing and coaching front
Taking on NZ with window dressed sides and coaches was never going end in our favour
Rassie has been the first to restore some sense of direction. After beating the Kiwi’s at home and now winning the WC, the Boks are best placed to restore our rightful spot at the top under the astute Rassie
As for losing Sinkler - bullshit he is there because he is solid in the scrums and a good all round player. Beast drilled him and then continued the damage on Cole, England’s better scrummager with vast caps behind him.
To say England lost momentum they never had because a weaker scrummager was replaced by a stronger one is laughable
Had it been a case of say Malherbe being replaced by Ruan Dreyer then yes you would have had a point but you don’t. Cole is the better scrummager so in reality should have aided England in the scrums but we all know where that ended up
We gave England a good hiding, beating Wales was not pretty but it was a job well done. Not every game of rugby is a one sided affair, some are won ugly
Excuses to minimize the Springbok win was plentiful and trying to demerit them flowing like shit from Mozart is to be expected,
First of all the loss against New Zealand was due to two mistakes - one by Mostert and the other by Mapimpi. That was the low point for the Springboks in the series and that suddenly is Mozart's escape from reality,
Now onto the Welsh game - the Welsh escaped from a similar thrashing a the English by two handling errors by Willie - the one was knocking on the ball with an open tryline in front of him - the other a poor forwards pass by him.
However, the NZ commentators on the Breakthrough program agreed that on the day the Springboks would have beaten the All Blacks would not have beaten the Springboks, The discussion was clear and precise - Mozart's ifs and buts were delusional.
However, the discussion is what happened in the thee finals - not what happened in any other game. The finals were the topic on the issue. So lets stick to that one, pleaser.
We have heard the BS about the chicken run before - even though that had nothing to do with Erasmus - he DID NOT decide on non-participation by SA in tests in 2020 - it was a board decision based on logistics, What influenced the Board to decide on non-participation has nothing to do with Erasmus other than asking him whether the Springboks would be fully fit and ready to play and he gave them the honest answer - which was they were not ready to play.
When the decision was taken there were NO games played by any SA side at all for the full 2020 since March 2020 and the fact is that the SA teams were only allowed to play rugby as from late September - when the NZ and Aussie teams have already played rugby for 2 months. I would say some honesty is called for in this case.
Sinkler was off at Minute 3 before there were any scrums....hard for Beast to drill him. Dave as usual you’re inventing your own facts. Coles conceded 4 penalties. Coles was a huge problem....the problem.
Argentina put the lie to the Chicken run.
By the way Mozart was the Springboks in 2007 not lucky not to come up against the ABs in 2007 after the AB's thrashed them 33-6 in the Tri-Nations that year. The English team in 2007 was weak because too many of their players were way past their sell-by date,
Yet - after being beaten by a massive margin in the Round Robin game - the final was a fiasco. The Springboks should have beaten the English easily - but struggled in elements of the game and their display in most cases was shoddy and vey questionable. Looking at the game again their ball handling was substandard and the ball protection at breakdowns were poor. That was where the SA loosies and their backline players vanished from sight.
You obviously has not answered my question as to your preference for Fransie at 12 - why with the reasons stated by me was he preferred by you?
Still suffering from depression after the Springbok WC win - proving that you were wrong from the word go about Erasmus as a coach? You never wrote anything negative about the two disasters we had before him as Springbok coaches - why?
You were schooled on the Tait incident at least twice before, you clearly aren’t going to learn, so there is no point in trying again.
Cole is a better scrummager than Sinckler and that’s a fact, but that’s all Cole can do.
But scrumming is down to the unit as a whole and the Bok scrum made England look like a bunch of girls
Mozart
Schooled how - Fransie did not run from the side to try and tackle Tait. It was a simple open-field tackle he missed and I cannot remember any logical "schooling" posted by you. He missed three other tackles as well and throughout his career defense at center always was a problem - so your excuses and explanations would be worthless.
By the way the English team of 2007 was riddled with players past their sell-by date. Even the great Wilkinson was sub-standard in that game.
I must repeat I saw the game live and was not impressed with aspects of the game. On looking at the three finals carefully the display was shoddy compared to the 1995 and 2019 finals. Any objective person would see that - and the fact is typified by the fact that the only time they had a serious attempt to core a try - they lost ball possession at a breakdown. Bot nobody can ever accuse you of objectivity when it comes to players and coaches. .
You can’t compare the 3 finals - one was emphatic the other two close affairs as WC finals usually are
The astute Rassie broke the mould - the man is on another level
We thrashed England in that final under Rassie - case closed
Dave
In the main I agreed with you, but -
* the 1995 was against the All Blacks which at the time was by far the ebst rated team in the world and beating them was a great achievement on its own; while
* the 2007 English team was substandard as a result of persistence with their great players in the 2003 WC - too many of the players were over-the hill and was in thee nd not good enough - while nobody rated the English team as anywhere near the best in the world in 2007
The fact is before the 2019 final the English was the number 1 ranked team in the world after a comfortable win against the AB's and was a huge favorite rated by the bookmakers to win the Cup. Fact is Woodward before the game said that anybody giving the English to win the game by less than seven points will be a brave person.
Erasmus is a rugby genius and he has proven it time and again. All experts in the world credit him for turning the Springboks around into world cup winners within a 18 month period. When I spoke to Rob Louw about Erasmus he compared Erasmus to Dr Danie Craven as a coach and expert in rugby knowledge - but Mozart has been desperately attacking him since the day it became known that he was replacing Coetzee.
Can you remember a single line of criticism Mozart has ever written by Mozart about Meyer or Coetzee as coaches - but he does write attacks on Erasmus endlessly, Wonder why that is happening? .
Dave
In the main I agreed with you, but -
* the 1995 was against the All Blacks which at the time was by far the ebst rated team in the world and beating them was a great achievement on its own; while
* the 2007 English team was substandard as a result of persistence with their great players in the 2003 WC - too many of the players were over-the hill and was in thee nd not good enough - while nobody rated the English team as anywhere near the best in the world in 2007
The fact is before the 2019 final the English was the number 1 ranked team in the world after a comfortable win against the AB's and was a huge favorite rated by the bookmakers to win the Cup. Fact is Woodward before the game said that anybody giving the English to win the game by less than seven points will be a brave person.
Erasmus is a rugby genius and he has proven it time and again. All experts in the world credit him for turning the Springboks around into world cup winners within a 18 month period. When I spoke to Rob Louw about Erasmus he compared Erasmus to Dr Danie Craven as a coach and expert in rugby knowledge - but Mozart has been desperately attacking him since the day it became known that he was replacing Coetzee.
Can you remember a single line of criticism Mozart has ever written by Mozart about Meyer or Coetzee as coaches - but he does write attacks on Erasmus endlessly, Wonder why that is happening? .
Wrong
1 The Tait incident occurred where the ball went loose, Fransie rushed up to gather ball, but Tait was in a better position....and Frans overran the tackle.....there you have been schooled for the third time.
2 There were 3 contenders at the WC....ABs, Boks, Poms. They played each other once.....each team won once and lost once. The WC was decided by the sequence of those wins. If the Boks had played the ABs....and won...they would most likely have lost against England.
3 Erasmus has always failed to show and carefully chosen where he commits to compete. He abandoned the Boks in 2007 and he abandoned the fans in 2020. But he did abandon the ‘seuntjies running through open fields’ approach so favored by Mike, Biltongbek and the Media. He made defence an equal consideration and for that I thank him and especially I thank Kneeknocker.
You always fail to acknowledge the fact that everything Neinaber knows about rugby is thanks to Rassie
The man has only ever coached under Rassie moving from physio to coach
He has never coached a side before
So your attribution is actually to Rassie
Mozart
So Fransie rushed up and Tait ran through his attempted tackle. Very good excuse coming from you - who attacked De Allende endlessly about May stepping him when he ran from the middle the field towards the sideline to try and prevent May from getting out of the English 22. That to you were a routine taken failure by De Allende. about which you wrote a false report as to what actually happened/ Fransie's failure is covered by an invented excuse - but you attacked De Allende for missing a much more difficult tackle on May.
Nice show of biased "objectivity".
Now you are saying that if the Boks played the All Blacks in the final and performed like they did in the final - the AB's would have beaten them. So according to you the WC was won in absentia by the AB's. Even the AB's would laugh about that one.
The end result is the English beat the AB's convincing in the semi and got thrashed by the Springboks in the final, so the Springboks did not deserve to win the WC.
I know you hate Erasmus and some of the key players of the Springbok team - but is it not time to stop your ravings and accept the fact that the Springboks deserved the win.
‘He has never coached a side before’....bingo. Yet Rassie recommends him as head coach of the Boks as his first team coaching experience....just so Rassie can play his control games. Surely you see how self serving this man is.
Nope Rassie has said all along that he will remain the hands on coach so I’m not sure what your point is.
As director of rugby he is looking to fix all things SA rugby in those gaps between coaching the Boks
It makes perfect sense. He is the man to improve our game across the board as he has proved with the Bok side
So he leaves Neinaber to deal with all the off field responsibilities of a national coach in those times between tests matches with both he and Rassie and a few others continuing in their roles as hands on coaches when it’s test time
Of course Rassie had to appoint his right hand man for the job - anyone else would have objected and wanted more say in coaching the Boks
Neinaber is nothing more than Rassie’s puppet and Neinaber is content with that as he knows he is no stand alone national coach
It’s yet again an example of Rassie being ahead of the game. It makes perfect sense.
He dedicated 2 full years to taking the Boks from 7 to 1, the foundation is now laid freeing up his time to concentrate on the countries rugby as a whole while ensuring he remains hands on with the Boks when it matters.
Nothing self serving about that, it’s him giving to SA rugby as a whole
The fact you dont get this Moz and the fact that you ignorantly slate him at every turn speaks volumes for your grasp on reality but hey ho it’s your way.
As SA rugby followers we love what Rassie has done and what he is now doing moving forward.
I’m guessing only you and omelette are the only two amongst every Bok supporter who sees so much negative in Rassie
It’s rugby ignorance of the highest order seeing no merit in taking the Boks from 7 to 1 in 18 months and in the process winning the RC and WC along the way.
It’s embarrassing for you Moz but you keep banging that laughable drum
‘Anyone else would have objected’ ..,, to this farce? Nooooooo, you don’t say. Actually this is succession 101 in business, you appoint the best man for the job. If Erasmus wanted to remain the coach he should have. But it seems he prefers pulling the strings without being accountable.
The Bargies are warriors....they showed the way. Rassie having won once has lost the appetite to compete and cravenly pulled out of the RC. The ABs would never have done it, which is why they have respect and we don’t WC or no WC.
Mozart
Why do you make ridiculous remarks like you continue to do in this case? Erasmus and Nienaber has worked together with Erasmus for two decades. Wherever Erasmus went since he coached the Free State - Nienaber went as his assistant,
Nienaber was always around and what he learned about coaching he learnt from Erasmus. So who was the actual coach of the Springboks in the WC campaign. Erasmus and his assistants worked closely together and there wan no aspect of coaching that he did not have the final say on.
Whomsoever he had on his staff he handpicked himself and that is why the coaching staff was such a wonderful combination.
Your other comments are childish BS without any basis of fact,
So who makes the choice if Nienaber and Erasmus differ on players? And let’s not have any childish bs like they never differ.
They work as a team - of you know what that means, If you go through everything you used for attacking on Erasmus - there was proven to be NO factual basis for it. Exactly the opposite was in fact true, The allegations were endless, but all proven to be based on rubbish you invented and you never had any proof to they were real. .
That is why the allegations made by you are ridiculous and damaging to your intelligence. It is ridiculous to use prejudice as a norm on anything and you are indeed basing virtually all your rugby comments on prejudice and not fact. Typical examples are endless - like the case was with Steyn and De Allende I mentioned above,
That is indeed why I say what you come up with is so ridiculous it borders on childishness.
Just one question - in all the years that Meyer and Coetzee near to totally destroy Springbok rugby you never attacked them about their incompetence - but in the case of Erasmus you invent issues to attack him on?
Moz just as I thought - you don’t get it at all
But the main thing is, the true SA rugby followers do
We completely get what Rassie is doing
He is remaining the hands on coach of the Boks and he is working to improve SA rugby as a whole across the board
He is working overtime to improve things but your petty prejudice sees the opposite
Rassie has been the saviour of Bok rugby - 2019 proved that
To answer your question on player selection if they differ, I’m sure without a doubt Rassie has the final say
Rassie is on record saying they have had many heated discussions over the years on player selection
Dave please note hat when faced with real issues by you and me he never answers anything and try to sidetrack discussions. He also carry on with total invented BS all the time.
Mozart
You wrote as follows:-
"Argentina put the lie to the Chicken run."
Just a question - were the regulaltions and sport bans by the Argentine Government the same as those imposed by the SA Government?
If they were your arguement may have some real value - if they did not - then you are exposed as a distortionist again.
Moz conveniently ignores the fact that the decision not to play in RC was not made by Rassie and even if Rassie had made the decision, it was the correct one
But the fact remains, the decision was not down to him
So the chicken run chirp is a load of utter chicken shit
clevermike
Hall Of Fame
42590 posts
Having no live rugby to broadcast Supersport decided to use the victories of the Springboks in 1995, 2007 and 2019 WC's. real rugby enthusiasts have seen those matches repeatedly - but when one views them together in sequence there is a really good option to look at the performances of the three teams involved and evaluate what really happened in the three finals.
This will be controversial - but the following is evident:-
With no live rugby available what did Supersport do over the weekend? They showed the three WC finals one by SA and that gives an opportunity to compare the three matches – which real rugby fans have seen a number of times anyway.
So lets look at various issues:-
The All Blacks – 1995 = The English - 2007 and 2019
The All Blacks was by some distance the best team in the world in 1995. They had Lomu as a permanent threat and they tried always to get the ball to him o cause chaos for the opposition. They thrashed England in the semi-finals with Lomu scoring 4 tries in the game. They were overwhelming favourites to win the Webb-Ellis Cup and deservedly so.
The 2003 English team started developing in a formidable unit in 1997-98 and in there were hig expectations that they would win the 1999 WC. However, they did not and the team continuing developing well to win the 2003 RWC. By 2007 the team core was well over 30 years of age and in decline as a unit and that was shown in the Round Robin matches when SA defeat them by a big margin. In essence a team who struggled to win in the round robin stage of the tournament and as lucky to get through to the final. This team can best be described as a team consisting largely of has beens and not expected to win anything,
The 2019 England team was a strong unit comparable to the English WC winning team of 2003. They thrashed all teams they meet in the Round Robin stage of the competitions and easily beat Australia and the formidable All Blacks in the play-offs. They came into the final as huge favourites to win the RWC. A well-finctioning and coached team.
Defense
The outstanding feature in the 1995 final was the fact that the Springboiks managed to curtail the influence on Lomu in the game. That called for solid defense by the Springboks and their defence was very good throughout the game and the highly-favored All Blacks was unable to score any tries. Deserve a rating of 8/10 for their effort in the relevant regard.
The problem in 2007 was that the defense of the Springboks were purely structured and haphazard. It happened throughout the series and was particularly noticeable in the Tonga and Fiji matches – and clear by one example in the final. The way Tait ran through the defense and nearly scored a try himself in the final was a typical example. Deserve a rating of 6,5/10 for heir effort.
Then we have the 2019 and the one expression of an English commentator was clear and precise – “there is just no way through” . The English team showed very little on attack – especially backline attack – because they were neutralized by defense. The classic 5 minutes when the English attacked all out ended with the English team never scoring try – with especially Malherbe, Vermeulen, Etzebeth, Pollard and Du Toit doing sterling work. The latter had a strong hand in disrupting the functioning of the English backline throughout the game. A rating of 9,5/10 for defense is justified.
Ball handling
In the 1995 final in general ball retention was acceptable and kicking was a huge part of the Springbok effort - even though some out-of hand kicking was ineffective and could be regarded as aimless since it did not result in pressure on the opposition, When they did pass the ball the ball skills were good enough and there were rare cases where the Springboks failed in the test. They did have a disallowed try because of a forward pass – but that was not a real and persistent problem. Rated at 8/10
In the 2007 final there was a serious problem. The ball-handling throughout the series was problematic and there were numerous knock-ons of balls and a number of turnovers by the English at breakdowns. There were at least three turnovers by the English at breakdowns . The out-of hand kicking game was problematic and represented numerous sources of counter-attacks by the English. Rated as 6/10
In the 2019 WC the Springboks passing was generally good – bar for Willie when joining the line. There were only one case where there was a breakdown possession turnover. In general – the out-of-hand kicking was exceptional and effective, Kicks had put the English constantly under pressure. Rated as 8,5/10
Forward Play
The forwards were very effective in 1995 and fought well in all phases of the game, Sollid in both scrums and line-outs. 8/10
In 2007 the same cannot be said of the Springboks. The Springboks in scrumming was average and in some cases not acceptable, They did not hold their own at breakdowns – while in line-outs Matfield managed to take two English throw-in line-outs, but the result was so poor that Du Preez could not handle the ball. On the whole rather very average with a rating of 6/10 being in evidence.
The 2019 WC was a classic of total forward dominance of the game in scrums and a breakdowns - where the highly-rated English team was demolished by the Springboks. If ever ia team deserve a 10/10 rating it is this one – but there were some individual efforts that nee ds to be borne in mind so a rating of 9,5/10 is appropriate.
As top overall ratings of the three Springboks teams is concerned the ratings are as follow:-
1995 Springbok team = 8/10
2007 Springbok team = 7/10
2019 Springbok team = 9/10
If I had the option of selecting a combined team from these three tests – the chances are that there will only be at most two 2007 players who will be candidates for the amalgamated team, namely Montgomery and Habana.