The 1995 - 2007 -2019 WC victories by the Springboks

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.     

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 a nd 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. 

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  - f act 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-h ill 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. 

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.

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.

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 t he 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?         

Mozart

Schooled how - Fransie did no t 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.   . 

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.

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 wo n 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.

‘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 rid iculous 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?