The History of Rugby

There are a number of remarks on history that is generally accepted as part and parcel of humanity and it is necessary to reflect on those and see how they apply to rugby as a game.    Allow me to expand and mention basically two of those:-

*    History repeats itself - in other words nothing will happen that did not happen somewhere in the world previously and this implies that the same mistakes made in the past are repeated.

*    President Kruger once said "Take whatever is good from the past and build thereon your future':.

Both the above should apply in rugby as well.    Prior to 1995 rugby was regarded - although in many ways not actually applied as such - as an amateur sport code.   Many "allowances and sponsorships" benefitted top players - but they were not actually paid salaries.  In a competetive world rugby was under threat as sport all over the world became professionalized.    After the 1995 World Cup the situation changed and Rugby - like other codes of sport - became professionalized and the circumstances changed drastically.    What applied prior to 1995 would never apply again in future as circumstances changed completely.

Prior to 1995 - or lets rather be honest and go back to prior to 1981 - the physical aspect in rugby led to Springbok Rugby teams be feared by the other teams in the World.   However, when SA became involved in international rugby again in 1992 - the Springboks did not perform well.   A decade of isolation had serious disadvantages - we became isolated from developing player techniques and game plans.    That fear was soon lost by top international teams and losses in tests mounted.   In essence the reasons for the mounting number of losses were that SA thought the physical aspect of forward play - so successful previously - would carry us through as it was successful in the past.    Even though we won the World Cup in 1995 - we caould not be regarded as a dominant force in rugby anymore - and that was proven time and again subsequently.

The lack of success in tests series let to the appointment of a string of coaches and nothing really was achieved of a lasting nature.   Some of the coaches were definitely more competent than others - but the end result was always the same - the coaches were kicked out because of lack of performance by their charges.  

The question is - what went wrong in the whole situation?   The answer is relatively simple.   In the amateur era many of our players were brought up on farms - where they had to do hard physical labour and consequently developed strength.   However, better nutrition and training methodology led to development of bigger and stronger people all over the world and natural physical development by people was just not on anymore.   Nutrition became the norm for growing bigger and stronger.   Lets take a practical example.   Piet "Spiere" Du Toit was at his time one of the most fearsome props in the World.   He was 6"1" tall and weighed 96 Kgs.   His grandson Pieter-Steph Du Toit is 6'8" tall and weighs 118 kgs.   

On the physical side we have a similar situation.   The gym and running track became the center of activity insofar as physical development is concernd.    This is the case all over the world - and there is NO WAY that we can say our rugby players are physically stronger than those of other countries.   The past era of physical superirority is gone foreever - and the failure of virtually all our coaches are due to that fact.

In the case of virtually all our coaches we had a constant harking back to the past - where SA teams had physical domination.   A change was noticeable in 1997 - when Carel du Plessis was appointed as a coach.   He believed and started off with a new game plan that covers comprehensive rugby performance.   In essence it was a huge difference from what happened in the past and the initial losses - as a result of the fact that player performances had to have time to develop - killed the initiatives introduced by Du Plessis.  What did happen was that he built up a squad of players that after his departure for a period of 16 tests dominated world rugby.   Mallet was given credit for that - but Mallett himself was big in talk - but could not maintain the growth and by the 1999 WC - we really were back to the situation prior to 1997.

The losses mounted and the coaches succeeded each other in rapid succession.   By 2003 we clearly was not on par anymore - we were clearly below par in performances.    Then Jake White was appointed as coach.   His objective was not to win test series immediately - but to start building a team that could dominate at the 2007 WC.    We were poor in the period 2004-06 - but by 2007 we had the team to win the WC again.   The development of a comprehensive rugby strategy was enhanced further by the usage of Eddie Jones to enhance player skills in ball handling and strategy.   One of the best tests ever was at the Stade D' France - where through comprehensive rugby performance - we beat England 36 - 0 in a classical game played with a comprehensive strategy.

However, it was soon clear that White developed enemenies in the Rugby Board and he was worked out and replaced by Pieter De Villiers.   The coach really had nothing to offer and the end result was the losses returned and we were back to the dark days of the early 2000's.   The main reason relates to the lack of a comprehensive game plan and deficiencies in ball handling capacity,    No wonder the coach was changed again and we ended up with Meyer as the new coach.   

What is needed in the modern era is a comprehensive programme of skills development and that implies that the skills of ALL PLAYERS IN THE TEAM needs to be developed and fine-tuned.   PHYSICAL DOMINANCE up front - unachieveable in the modern era of professional sport worldwide - will get us nowhere.   Playing techniques of a comprehensive and clever nature is the norm that leads to domination in international sport - and the real question is  whether this can be achieved?

It is felt that the present signs insofar as Meyer's early statements are not good.   His first efforts were aimed at "experienced" players - and his comments as to the fact that we do not have backline players with the necessary skills to play attacking rugby are really problematic.   Instead of trying to develop new talent - he tried to get Fourie Du Preez and Mattfield back into the team - and is now onto Bakkies Botha.   Those players were no doubt top players at their peak - but they are really all past their "sell-by" dates.   Also they are from an era where we won the WC in 2007 - but lost virtually all series subsequently.    

I have a further problem with the present scenario.    Meyer constantly refer to experienced players  and that he would enhance the kicking abilities of Morne Steyn and Hougaard.   However, there is no mention made by him as to a comprehensive skills development programme for all players.    The issue here is that the lastest news is that they want to get Nienaber in as a defence coach - but what about a decent coach to enhance ball handling skills like another Eddie Jones as an attacking option as well?   

I think that Meyer is really going to have huge difficulties in future - unless he can develop a comprehensive game plan and introduce a comprehensive skills development programme.   All indications are that the present process is NOT AIMED at a comprehsnive process - but really a very restrictive one that emphasize a limited playing strategy that would not produce results.    

THE NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAYING STRATEGY AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE - EVERY SUCCESSFUL MODERN MANAGER IN EVERY FACET OF MANAGEMENT WILL TELL YOU THAT.   Can this cardinal issue not become the focus of SA Rugby for the next three years?         

Name me a country in th world that can put in a mobile pack of 940 kg.

Coenie, Bissie, WP Nel, Etzebeth, Bekker, Schalk, Vermulen and Alberts. Name one pack of forwards in world rugby that could match that. We still have a compettive advantage but fail to use it. Our problem is brain power of those in charge. Instead of making a guy like Dr Brendan Venter coach we make ou pdv coach!!!!

The WP mamnagement lose Mallet and Rassie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Coetzee flops as Bok backline coach and gets appointed. Fleckie also gets a plum position on the basis of what precisely?. Loubcsher is Bok backline coach with no credentials worth speaking of. We do the daftest things and in the most unprofessioanl way. Witness the debacle re the queens! It allhilarious - that we compete at all is amazing and a testamen to the inherent talent.

At the wolrd cup we had a 107 kg pap lock. We play an over the hill Smit at hooker instead of Bissie, we play an non performing spiesies. Look at Meyers forward selections even now!!!

SO NO  THE BEENO POWER PACK HAS NOT REMOTELY BEEN TRIED.   We prefer showponies! Bring on Daniels to klap the abs. Aplon must start and its ashame how De Jong is ignored. Bwahahahahaha we want to fight fire with a small puff of air. Let nz outweigh us in the backs and even in the forwards. NO matter we will just outsmart them with our clever running! Hahahahhahahaha it really cracks me up.

Mike when you start off training a naturally bigger man you get a better product than when you train a smaller man.

Genes do play a very significant part Mike. NZ genes cannot match ours when it comes to forwards.

End of story!

Mike well done on a great post...lots of insight and thought and I concur sincerely with your sentiments about where we should be heading. Whether or not SARU has that vision is the other issue.

As for gimp boy beeno..........watch out monkey man those NZ forwards are huge and looks like they will match beenos power pack

ragtad nz cant match us at forward 'with those small guys and the day we get our house in order is the day the abs revert to their historical pre isolation position of second to the Boks.

Enjoy the peanuts chimp!

clevermike your post is as insightfull as any other piece that i have ever read. only if our dear friend mark the cocaine ranger can see this. more insightfull points i have never seen.

complements aside....i see our lost brother beeno downgraded the IQ on this post with his once again one eyed "forward crazed stormers" mindset

the facts are in the the preisolation years we as saffers with our afrikaans genes are generally bigger than other countries so we used that more and dominated. even in those years we still have a great running backline and players that were on there day the best in the world. in short we played total rugby. forwards doing there part and backline players using skill speed and running to score the tries.

fast forward to the modern day our mentality has not changed even though the rest of the world has come pro and the size and power we had is being neutralized by teams that are just as big and more deceptive and skill full in rendering our forward power. yes beeno we are not the master of all the forwards. yes our packs are big but not street smart like the aussies and the AB. i have never seen a AB scrum go backwords. the wallies scrum was a weakness but they corrected that and now they are playing total rugby.

many people are in delusion and think we can play this forward game plan and win everything when every rule and team since the new elvs has proven that to be the best you need a quick attacking high ball possession game plan with a more open style to be competive. it almost seems like we are stuck in the middle ages with the plough over players mentality.

beeno you make a fair point of the big heavy pack but do you really think a big heavy pack can run around for 80 min long at the type of intensity that the ab's and co can play ???? the bigger you are the slower you are. when the fat boys get gassed then the smaller more agile players will run circles around them.

we need to pick players that are more suited to a open style of play that are also more suited to play under the new laws. the sharks and cheetahs teams are case and point.

Beeno

Your comments above is way below par and stinks of bravado - coupled to unscientific comments.   That would get us nowhere.   Genes have nothing to do with it anymore - there are bigger and stronger people all over the world and on your theory we are unbeatable if we select a few of the players you recommend.  That is equivalent to a comic strip - real Johnny Bravo type.

Are you by any chance a manager in your field of work?  If so - do you not believe in skills development, the key of my above comments?   If you think that weight anf strength alone will produce results - you really are living in the 1800's.   The modern world has passed you by.   Get real and start thinking before you write crap.

muncher be moe specific who cant play for 80 minutes. one aslo has 4 to 5 forwrd reserves.

Also try running with your pack going backwards. Your scrum going backwards, loosng lineouts etc etc. everything becomese asier behingd a dominant pack. WE NEED TO PICK ONE!!!!!

Mike I say yet again I am all for skills improvement  i haqve lamented this on numerous occasions.

Genes have a lot to do with it. Explain the kenyans and their running. Explain the hundred meters final. Explain the Islander backs - very small populations. Your comments re genes is totally unscientific and very silly.

Our competitive advantage is in the forwards. We can also produce a pretty good backline and hopefully with skills.I cant even begin to imagine where you get this idea I think skills are not important Mike. Read my posts before making stupid comments like this one!

Anyone thinking we can have a sub par pack but outrun NZ is dreaming - we need a dominant pack with good backs. That should do it.

Again gimp boy you are off the mark......beside the other tripe you dribble, if you think we can become world beaters with a dominat pack and I quote "good backs" un-quote, then you are more pathetic than I thought you were!!!!!

SA will never win sustainable rugby against the AB's Walaabies or even the better NH teams with your theory. Anything with half the team being dominant and the other half being just good is just nonsense and just highlights your lack of understanding. If we go into any game without being the very best then lets now just settle for second best.......

Your blind and pathetic stance on winning with the Stormers game plan as the blueprint for the Boks is just laughable. What part of the equation do you not understand.......Sharks played Stormers twice......Sharks ran twice.....Sharks game plan much more superior twice.......Result Sharks won twice.......

Learn Beeno Learn

Carpetmuncher

Just one point here - the Mark you referred to was a correspondent for the Sunday Times and the chief critic of Du Plessis as a coach.   It won't help to send my comments to him - I am afraid it would be beyond is cocaine ridden comprehension.   After Mallett became coach - he became the press agent for Mallett.

May I add something here.  Teichmann as captain was a great supporter of Du Plessis and it showed up after the record wins of the Springboks against the 1997 Lions last test and the Wallabies.   Mallett never forgave Teichmann for that and he was fired by Mallett as captain before the 1999 WC - after not speaking to Teichmann - even on the phone for more than six months.   That was the final nail in the Springbok coffin under Mallett and ultimately he would have been discharged as a coach - even though he pre-empted the firing by resigning because of the so-called Kings Park ticket fiasco.. 

"Mallett never forgave Teichmann for that and he was fired by Mallett as captain before the 1999 WC - after not speaking to Teichmann - even on the phone for more than six months."

And some people are still pissing and moaning about the Jake White/Puke Watson issue, yet they are worshipping Mallett............................?

Muncher of carpets I suggest you change your diet and move up to peanuts and you might reach chimp level! Bwahahahahaha. Try and answer some points I raised and you may add value.

If your backs are good in relation to your opposition then you are doing well dumbo! Hahahahaha you have no clue really.

I have also not been happy with the lopsided Stormers approach and have lamented and castigated Coetzee and Flecks coaching many times. Are you too dumb to have noticed or is this a totally dishonest disinfornation campaign. I have not agreed that bonus points are not necessary if you are winning etc etc etc

Change yout diet Muncher as currently you are sitting at loonie level!!  Can muncher rise to chimp ou level?

Well Mike still no answer re my points raised by genes. Oh yes you could add pigmies will never make top flight basket ball players.

Genesof course are not the only compenent but they do matter.

So lets hear your response even if you just address the Olympic 100 meter final - men and women. Explain why my comments are unscientific and stink of bravado. I say the Africaner genes produce the best rugby forwards and I stick to that. Try and keep the discussion civil.

"ragtad nz cant match us at forward 'with those small guys and the day we get our house in order is the day the abs revert to their historical pre isolation position of second to the Boks." quote Beeno......

Hehe gimp thats funny actually........I sincerely hope you are right as I do also want what you want. I just dont have the delerious thought patterns of stupidity and ignorance that come with your theories......It is of no value if your size comes with limitations.....but as you said "house in order one day" good luck oh wise man of the ape nation bhwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa  

Ragtad nice to se some humour rom you at last I thought we had lost youas ou muncher had been lost.

Go beeno ways and be prepared to rule.pick the show ponies and it will not work.

End of story. I am off to a wine estate etc and berry farm with family . Nice sunny day here in the Cape and a public holiday. Cant waste it trying to knock some sense into muncher or ragtad!! Hahahahahahaha.

Lessons will recomence later.

Beeno

I think that genes do have in impact on the size of people - but not necessarily on sporting performance.   A more direct impact nowadays relates to diets and nutrition, coupled to the field of general health enhancement.   There is no direct link between genes and sporting achievement.   However, going back to the 1800's there was an extremely negative component within the Afrikaans community that in fact could have a negative impact on later developments.   By 1800 there were less than 7 000 white inhabitants in the Cape Colony.   Poor transport and distances caused havoc and the result was intermarriage within families on a major scale.   Through the next five generations cousins and second cousins continuously married one another.   That in fact weakened the gene pool and not necessarily strengthened it.  

As from 1900 a large proportion of the Akrikaners moved into cities and a huge degree of poverty existed in that set-up - which had further negative impacts on poeple growth and health.   Those who managed to stay on their farms did continue to have healthy diets and in the process showed growth factors not necessarily found amongst the majority of the Afrikaans people.   This situation remained till after World War II with major advances in health and nutrition.

On the whole - yes there are certain factors that could impact on size of people - but those factors are not necessarily contributing to sporting achievement.   There is no scientific evaluation on that score and any comments on that issue is not based on sound and proven investigations.

Let me ask you one question on that score.   Take Etzebeth for example.   He is actually descended from Hungarians (Etzebeth is the Hungarian equivalent of the name Elizabeth) and although I have not really made any study of his family history and background - the chances are very good that his family fled Hungary in 1956 at the time of the Hungarian revolt.   That means that his grandfather was a refugee - and also that the family became more Afrikaans-orientated - but his descent from Afrikaans pepople are indeed not really proven.   Put that bit of history in your pipe and smoke it.  

 clevermike....always enjoy your blogs.

But one factor you seem to have overlooked is the lack of an attacking #10 in our teams.

When last did we have a great #10, they have always been kickers (some poorly) without flair and vision.

Just look at players like Cooper, O'Conner, Barnes they are always chipping, running and not kicking away posession like SA #10's.

Buy I must add that two players who appear to have the skills are Lambie and Goosen.

Trust they can redeem Springbok pride once more.

Arthur John

Thanks for the complement.   I did rate Honiball as the last of our acceptably all-round flyhalfs - but we have to go nack to Naas Botha before him to get to some sort of all-round player.   Naas himself started off as a kicker - but later on developed more skills.

However, you are right about Goosen and Lambie as potential all-round flyhalfs.   Jantjies could also develop - but I think he is weak as a defender - and very inexpereienced as a flyhalf.   I watched the Lions-Stormers game with interest since it was putting him against a stronger opposition.   During the whole game he used flat passes that was totally ineffective and there was very lillte variation in his play.   Taking into the serious defensive lapses as well - I came to the conclusion that some of his supporters on this site is barking up the wrong tree.

I would like to see Goosen at flyhalf - but I do not think that Meyer and his game plan is ready for that.   Same with Lambie - he has scored some classic tries when playing at flyhalf and is an outstanding defender.

@mike hahahaha yeah well at least if you send your piece in you might just send poor old mark keohane in a coke bender. no white line in cape town will be save. your post was still more progressive and more rugby minded than anything that pervert mark has done in ages. that being said beeno likes to qoute him.....that being said i enjoy your posts your always objective and one can see you know your stuff.

i agree mike honiball was our most complete fly half in the modern era. only issue he had was his goal kicking but even that in the latter years was very very good. i can recall he had over 85% for a long time. his first mindset was to attack and not kick that was the difference. was running onto the ball from deep and gave his attacking support a lot of speed and width on attack. carter and cooper has the same skill set.

we in sense are the victim of our own game plans. if one looks at the playing styles of different teams one can see the teams that play a more open game tend to breed better backline players and better thinking 10's...

goosen en lambie is great prospects with the likes of pollard and co the future seems bright but we need to put these talents in a enviroment where they can play there game and learn even more.

no one wants to see a robotic player like morne steyn and grant. they have been brainwashed by the likes of no cups coetzee and co not to think and play one eyed. some things that happen on the pitch cant be coached sad truth but that is how it is.

@beeno where about in cape town are you ???? i might suggest you go to either a few school games and learn a thing or two. i am also in cape town so your more than welcome to ask me i will be more than willing to see how you will knock some sense into me. that is if you get even reach my face for it. maybe you should ask mum to extend your tv time before she tells you to go to bed at night. maybe put it one supersport of even reunion. yes beeno thats on supersport so dont get stuck on cartoon network like you always do. the stormers are not on this time only next year hey.... then after the weekend you can rest you weekend keyboard warrior fingers of yours and maybe post something or real informative value for the rest to comment on.

for a so called rugby legend you dont make a lot of stupid remarks. maybe all the paints stripper sniffing is catching up to you mate. i live in cape town so i know substance abuse is rife here. must be rife if coke ranger keohane is living here. mind you i have not seen white lines here on a highway for ages. i reckon mark must be involved

Carpet muncher yr wasting yr breath on Bean Brain. He's so delusional he still thinks the Stormers won the Super XV trophy when we all know as Brycy forewarned everyone that the Almighty Chiefs would be just too freakin good....

@clevermike,

great read bro and it makes me wonder about NZs own history, but a lot of stuff there gives more insight to Bok rugby.

@benno1,

bro, does ur family tree go all the way back to the 1880s with the inhabitants in cape colony??? i have a strong suspicion it does and explains soooooooooo much about u, LMFAO, :P

Sasu

Just a bit of personal background info.   Shortly after Jan van Riebeeck landed in the Cape in 1652 - he took a local girl - Eva of the Goringhaikona into his home - she was 13 years old at the time - to bring her up and use her as a translator when she got older.   She eventually married a Danish baron - Van Meerhof - a slave trader and explorer - a good friend of Van Riebeeck.   They had 2 children - a daughter by the name of Pieternella and a son..  

Meerhof was killed during a mission to Madagaskar - and Eva, being disorientated already, became an alcoholic - she died in 1674.   The children were placed in the care of the Dutch Reformed Chuech.   A Dutch family- moving to Mauiitius - asked for the two children mentioned to be taken with them - and in Mauritius Pieternella married my direct ancestor.  They returned to the Cape on 26 January 1709 - with a whole brood of children.   As a matter of fact Pieternella thus became the ancestress of most of the Afrikaans families in South Africa - either through the male or the female branches of successive generations.   As such - she was an ancestress of people like President Kruger and General Smuts as well. 

I grew up on one of the oldest farms in the Southern Cape with existing buildings dating back to 1768.   The above perhaps explains my interest in history.  

The posting heading should should rather have had "South African" as well.  I would never try and write a similar piece on New Zealand Rugby for instance. 

 Hi Mike, 

You must be kidding? With reference to this statement- "As a matter of fact Pieternella thus became the ancestress of most of the Afrikaans families in South Africa - either through the male or the female branches of succimpessive generations".

That is statistically improbable, or likely impossibale.

However- I am open to any other supporting references that would make me change my opinion.

It would mean that any other immigrants from Holland, France and other White Afrikaaners had no children(or very few). 

Lots (thousands) of men and women came to South Africa to have Afrikaaner decendents that were white and mixed race. The Dutch and French Hugenos were in the thousands of foreigners.

The scenario that you have suggested makes Pieternella sound like Adam& Eve in the Cape Gardens. 

It would also mean that nearly all Afrikaaners are of mixed race. (*note- niether bad or good- just an observation).

Lets say 2000 immigrants come to a country. Many have children. How can they all nearly be decendents of one person? The figures of foreigner migrants(dutch/French) are actually much higher than this since 1652. 

I found this article- http://www.stamouers.com/zaaiman.htm. It supports much of the background you mentioned, however not that most of the Afrikaaners population are decendent from one women.

Only in an Adam and Eve situation is what you have proposed statistically probable.

(Even Adam and Eve does not make sense. To quote the bible-" Adam and Eve had 2 children- Kane and Abel. Kane and Abel then went to the village to get wives". If Adam and Even are the first 2 people, that makes Kane and Abel the 3rd and 4th. (How did the wives or even the village come into existance if everyone is decendant of Adam and Eve?). 

Sorry to be conflictive with what you have said- however I do not believe it can be true. However I am open to any other supporting references that would make me change my opinion. This sounds like a church parable learned at youth. I remember learning similar things at Church when I was really young.

Another point is that Afrikaaner men and women have also had children with English decendents(how arrived in the 1800s). Many of these children were raised as english or afrikaans speaking- often the fathers first language/culture.

Some background articles that I referenced which show immigrants/decendants of Afrikaaners-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots_in_South_Africa

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/People_of_Dutch_ancestory_in_South_Africa_are_called

 Mike I agree with allmost all your posts, just disagree on this one

Sharkbok

Maybe I put the issue of Pieternella a bit too wide.   However, at no stage prior to 1800 did there ever was a case that 2000 immigtrants came to the Cape.   The total number of immigrants could have been 800 to 1000 - 20% were French Huguenots and at least 30% was German - from 1652 to 1800.   This can be stated as the total White population in 1800 was 6 700.     The latter figure was statistically recorded.    In such a small population growth was huge - a family rarely consisted of less than 8 children and intermqarriage was rife.    Pieternella herself had 10 surviving children - but the small pox epidemic of 1713 had a major impact as well.   However, statistically in five generations that would mean that she had at least 1000 descendents - ie 16% of the total White population of the Cape had common ancestry with Pieternella..    

Because of no immigration of Dutch immigrants after 1800 that percentage increased rapidly after the next five generations - again impacted upon by intermarriage.    However, the statement is statistically incorrect - although included in a documentary on the history of the Cape between 1652 and 1675 - in which her mother was mentioned.   However, another thing is that there were really very few woman coming to SA - since the initial Dutch settlement was mainly based on DEIC employees settling here after serving the Comapny for 10 years.   That meant that many of the actual settlers married local woman - hence the development of a large Coloured population as well.    The White population was actually developed after a few generations and depended largely on marriages in succeeding generations.   If in the next generation the descendants concerned  married a predominantly White person - the end result after generations would be a predominantly White characteristics - whilst in other cases it would be Coloured.   Of the 6 700 White residents most had Coloured ancestry.

The single largest immigration group that came to SA prior to the discovery of gold and diamands were the 1820 English immigrants who landed in Algoa Bay.   Within one generation by 1836 at least 10% became Afrikaans-orientated as a result of marriage and participation in the Great Trek.   That figure increased in succeeding generations.

Be it as it may - it is correct that both President Kruger and General Smuts had a descendent of Pieternella in their ancestry. 

In summary - this is not a history website and apologize for the statement made as to the fact that Pieternnella was the ancestress of most Afrikaners - she definitely had a huge impact though.   .

The AB's have never feared the Springboks at anytime. What has been shown since return to International rugby is that the so called huge dominant "feared" Bok pack is a myth. The AB's dismantled the Boks scrum in 2003 in posting 36 points and have more than at the least matched them in their encounters, if they didn't, the win loss ration in favor of the AB's wouldn't be what it is. Don't get me wrong I like the Boks and support them in non AB playing tests, I do think one of the areas they are lacking in producing backs with flair like the AB;s seem to at will.

polyboy

Please read the above carefully - the All Blacks prior to 1981 had a rather poor recrod playing the Springbpks - and the boe clearly indicated as such.   After 1992 the SA Rugby went into serious decline vecause of factors mentioned and the situation changed entirely. 

i must compliment you on this insightfull post once again mike....no biased motives of agenda's just straight to the point and on the money.

hope someone sends the orginal post to saru....

Clevermike, you say pre 1981, I say post 1981. The AB's did not have a dismal record pre 1981, the Boks were the only team to have more wins than the AB's but the margin was small, not as large as the margin enjoyed by the AB's today. But  all this is posturing on both our parts. Still love the AB/Bok matches, cause my first memory was my Dad waking my brothers and I to watch the 1976 series in SA, tense stuff.

Pick the right Beeno power pack and the wee abs would be quaking in their boots.

End of Story.

And yes  we did enjoy a nice edge over NZ pre isolation.

They sell Beeno here...for bloating and gas.  There isn't a Bok pack in existence that even makes the AB's lose sleep. Pity that "nice edge"pre isolation has been smashed by the AB's post isolation, but if tha tmythical  "power pack"ever  existed maybe that margin would be more competitive.

@clevermike,

the history stuff u posted  is an awesome read, its great to get insights on beenos family practisesm bawahahahaha, just kidding benno1 i know its not true, or at least im praying its not.


there are a few things that i would like to point out about the Boks vs AllBlacks pre 1981.

the Boks did have a better head to head winning record over the All Blacks, 37 tests were played, Boks won 20 and All Blacks won 15 with 2 draws, but the over all record in the same time frame has the Boks won a total of 63% of all their matches, while the All Blacks won 70% of theirs and played about 37 more tests. this is significant cos its harder to maintain a high percentage when u play more games.
also neutral referess are a big issue, as it wasnt until the 70s where neutral referees were used, so Bok test matches in SA were reffed by saffas, in turn All Blacks test matches in NZ were reffed by kiwis, but i always remember my uncle saying that there was a famous occassion where the saffa ref was talking to the captain of the All Blacks and Springboks but speaking in afrikaan. im not going to say that those games wernt officiated fairly cos i haven t seen them, but i do always wonder about it.

fast forward to what happens when the Boks and ABs start playing more regularly and well 10 Trinat titles out of 16 tells a pretty difinitve picture.