5 problems emerged for the Boks against the Argies

Oaks one has to say the Argies coach Contepomi is top notch.

First of all the was the fact that we lost the aerial battle. Hasn't happened for a long time. What went wrong?

Secondly our reserve front row started well but lost the dominance as time went on. I suspect the dark arts were emoyed as Wilco got scrummed a few times.

Thirdly, and most importantly the half backs did not control the game to close out the game. The best fly half we have in terms of game management is the classy Pollard. This contributed to the fourth problem.

Fourthly the Bok ball carriers ran into a brick wall. Eben and Wiese were marked men and got smashed back. Only later did Wiese begin to make ground. Boks tried to run off poor ball instead of going more for territory.

Contepomi master minded quite an Argies turn around. That said the scoreboard flattered the Argies. We were 16 points better.

Fifth point. Marx was the only true fetcher. We need a new 6 to come into the picture who is a fletcher. Could Hanekom do this job?

I could add the worry that Du Toit, possibly the greatest number 7 in Rugby history, is being overplayed as is Nortje and Kolbe. However this is conjecture from afar as doubtless they are carefully monitored.

Frontline Boks need a week or two off.

Wilco lost one scrum which was a surprise - he probably got complacent as we were dominating the scrums so much

The first half was an arm wrestle as it always is. We then dominated the first 20 min of the second half where we looked like we were going to run away from them

That changed with the Kolbe poor pass - I get what he was trying to do but his execution let him down.

Manie not finding touch with that penalty kick was also piss poor

We kicked badly, it was not a day for box kicks in the howling wind. Too many kicks from Sacha were too long and ended up not being contestable

We were not great on the day but still won. The mark of a good side is winning ugly and when it counts

We need to get Willemse back at 12 on the EOYT, his best value comes from 12 not 15. We need to stick with Moodie at 13 and not resort back to the old guard at centre

If Fassi is not back then we need to find an alternative at 15 - I’d go with Jordan Hendrikse, big fan of this lad but not at 10 where the Sharks play him

Agree with you Beeno

I do think that the Argies reserve their best for the Boks. They always turn up (except in Durban 2025).

Contepomi goes about his business very quietly, but he is a master tactician. Its good to see him and Rassie fight fire with fire.

I was also amused to see our scrum go backwards when Wilco came on, but it can happen if the scrum setup isnt 100% for a particular scrum. ... remember, its an 8 man shove.

I also think that some of the playewrs just had an off day... but as i said...

A champion team finds a way to win, even when they are not on song!

Actually just thinking about it I’ve missed an obvious replacement for Fassi at 15 in his absence - the very versatile David Kriel

This guy simply has to be rewarded with a test cap - he adds value in every game he plays as he did this weekend against Leinster scoring two tries

Best suited to 12 but very comfortable at 13 and 15 plus he kicks for poles

Dave I agree with you about Kriel at full back. I also like Green.

They always turn up (except in Durban 2025).

Dave's profoundness is rubbing off on you, Chip. They always turn up, except when they don't.

Like BomBombela last year or any test in '21 or '22.

Best suited to 12 but very comfortable at 13 and 15 plus he kicks for poles

Well, he kicks at the vicinity of the poles. Roughly. Smart player, no outstanding physical attributes though.

First of all the was the fact that we lost the aerial battle. Hasn't happened for a long time. What went wrong?

In a long time? Happened just the other day against the All Blacks in the first game, I even gave a rundown of how many of our box/high kicks we lost. We recovered 2 out of 13 of our own kicks, got a scrum off another and a penalty for obstruction off one. That's a best case of 4/13 kicks that we got some advantage from.

Oh fuck off Pakie you negative prick

No outstanding physical attributes? Meaning what exactly?

Tall and lanky like Jordie Barrett but at 102kg that is pretty respectable physically

I like him Dave. Smart player, as I said - his intercept on the weekend as one example shows that he is proactive and can read play and make good decisions. Just doesn't look particularly fast or strong as a carrier. That's not a disqualification, just an impression.

At 102kg he has enough behind him to live with the rest. He is not a power player but respectable enough in that department.

As you say he is an intelligent player and the fact that he has played plenty of rugby on the wing tells me he is quick enough to play centre or fullback

He is our version of Jordie Barrett - very good player who deserves a Bok cap. If Hooker can be capped then this lad deserves the same - less physical but more rugby intelligent

Oh fuck off Pakie you negative prick

David has not rubbed off on me!

My point about Argentina is that they usually bring their A Game to Springbok encounters.

Am I wrong in stating that?

My point about Argentina is that they usually bring their A Game to Springbok encounters.

Am I wrong in stating that?

Sort of, as I said last year at Bombela and all of '21/'22 we beat them pretty easily. '23 they ran us close once. So if they usually bring their A game then it's usually well short of the mark. For me they remain a one week hit, one week miss side most of the time against most top opposition. Last year was much the same routine for them as this year in the RC: beat NZ, smashed by them next game. Beaten by Aus, smashes them next game. Beats the Boks, smashed next game.

We beat them by 48 points to 7 in Nelspruit last year. A bigger margin than our 67 to 30 victory this year.

Argentina used to have the toughest loosehead in the game and a scrum. They are now playing with a scrum that holds for about 2 seconds. It’s a massive liability affecting their tactical choices. Can you play an edgy passing game if, when you do drop the ball, there’s a scrum and a penalty for your opponent,

Oh what utter shit, their weak scrum is not preventing them from excelling in all other departments of their game.

Fuck me your rugby knowledge is seriously flawed

Wake the fuck up

It’s too subtle for you Dave, remember you have a very low IQ.

You know nothing about my IQ Moffie

Judging by your take on rugby over the years and that I have schooled you over the years leaves me questioning your IQ - there is fuck all that is intelligent about an old man who is too stupid to acknowledge how great our coach is for a start

You have to be fucking stupid discrediting the best coach we have ever had or one of the best players we have ever had

Is that a sign of intelligence old man?

Pakie

Ok I have gone back and looked at results since 2020.

I apologise... I dont know why I always felt like they ran us close.

Apparently I am wrong.

Non the less, they have really come a long way.

Proper improvements over the past 10 years, which is testament to their latest WR Rankings.

No worries Chip, it's just conversation :)

Actually you could argue they peaked in 2007 when they reached the WC semi and were ranked third in the world.

Always kick a man when he is down

The Argies today are a far better side than they have ever been

Play a great attacking brand of rugby with some real world beaters on board like Matera, Kramer, Gonzales, Creve, Montoya, Albornoz etc

But they aren’t ranked 3rd in the world……once again ignorant bluster

Are you stupid enough to say the Argies back then were better than today’s side - bwhaaahaaaa

You are fucking seriously stupid

Current World Rugby Rankings:

South Africa

New Zealand

Ireland

‘France

England

Argentina

Australia

Game.set and match

So based on that you are saying that Argie side was better than the current one?

This should be entertaining

I’m saying nothing….those are World rankings based on performance. They beat Scotland, Ireland and France in the WC.

Wow IQ man :)

Problem is - Ireland, France and Scotland back then were nowhere near as strong as they are now

Is it starting to sink in yet?

France was ranked 4 and beat the ABs in the WC. Rankings are mathematical, Argentina was a better team in 2007 by results.

Beating one side here and there does not define a side over an extended period

France back then were nowhere near as good as they are now and the same applies to Argentina - even more so than France

Even you know this but you are so desperate to make a point based on partial evidence with reality playing no part at all

Well don’t ever quote our number 1ranking again, if you don’t believe the rankings. Argentina had a fine team back then and probably the best scrum in the game… now the worst among top teams

The Argies back then were nowhere near as good as they are now

Their scrum might have been better as scrummagers but that’s where it ends

Every other aspect of their game including players and achievements over a period of time is better now than it was then and that’s a fact - it’s not even close

Back then the Argies over an extended period were seen as a second tier side

Overview

In 2007, the Argentina national rugby team, known as Los Pumas, achieved their best-ever result by finishing third place in the Rugby World Cup, held in France. Their historic campaign included an opening night win against host France, winning their pool, defeating Scotland in the quarter-finals, and ultimately losing to eventual champions South Africa in the semi-finals before beating France again in the bronze medal match to claim third place.

Key moments of the 2007 Rugby World Cup:

1. Opening Night Upset:Argentina defeated the host nation France 17-12 in the tournament's opening match, setting the tone for their successful run.
2. Pool Dominance:Los Pumas topped Pool D by winning all their matches, including victories over Georgia, Namibia, and a crucial win over Ireland, which eliminated the Irish from the tournament.
3. Knockout Stage:In the quarter-finals, Argentina beat Scotland to advance to the semi-finals.
4. Semi-Final Loss:They lost to the eventual tournament winners, South Africa, in a match that saw South Africa defeat them 37-13.
5. Bronze Medal Win:Argentina secured third place by defeating France for the second time in the tournament, winning the bronze medal match.

Significance of the 2007 Tournament:

1. This third-place finish marked Argentina's highest-ever position in the Rugby World Cup and led to their eventual inclusion in the prestigious Tri Nations (now The Rugby Championship).
2. The team's performance was characterized by a strong defensive game plan and passionate play, showcasing the skill of key players such as Juan Martín Hernández and Felipe Contepomi.

Yeah and…..

You figure it out sunshine….or just stop when the one measure used to rank teams is telling you that you are losing yet another argument.

Moffie you have never won an argument with me and never will as I know more about the game than you ever will

What that Argie side did in a WC does not define them as a side over an extended period of time

Do you not get that?

Every aspect of the current side, bar scrumming is better than that side by some distance in fact

Give up man you are being slaughtered.

You are so fucking stupid - you are like a small child repeating the same stat that tells us fuck all

Are you saying that what the Argies did in that WC defined them as a side over say a 6 year period huh?

I’m saying that 2006 was before the WC moron……schplotttttttttttt!

Ok let’s have their ranking over a 6 year period.

Not to mention the fact that back then it was only really NZ, SA, England and Oz that ruled the roost - the likes of France, Ireland, Scotland, Argentina and Wales played second fiddle for the most

That has significantly changed now days with only Wales lagging

But NZ and Oz aren’t the force they used to be, and France and Ireland don’t have WC belief. It’s a much less formidable competitive set.

No NZ and Oz right now are not weak and who gives a shit whether the current French or Irish side have achieved anything at WC’s - sides are not defined solely by WC’s

Your rankings mean fuck all giving me one month at a time - plenty happens over a year

Right so rankings mean nothing, only flawed, biased opinion counts

No Im saying giving one months rankings means nothing as they often change on a regular basis.

Argentina may have been ranked as high as 4 in 2006, but that may be testament to the strength / weakness of the opposition.

For example, Ireland and France were not as strong as they are now.

Exactly Chip but these facts are beyond Moffie

Back then the Argies were effectively 2nd tier

Argentina was ranked as high as 3 in 2006.

For the whole of 2006? And what about the years before and after that?

Here it is….you obviously can’t distinguish dates, so this is February 2005

What fucking part of one months ranking counts for fuck all, do you not get?

Ill paint pictures for you

To get an idea where a side ranked over a period of time we would need to look at their ranking from Jan 2006 to Dec 2006 and the same for say 2003 to 2005 then 2007 to 2009

Get it?

Argentina started 2007 ranked 5th, rose to 4th by the start of the WC and finished the year ranked third. They maintained that 3rd ranking through the first half of 2008 and ended the year ranked 4th. All of which says they were a legitimate WC semi final opponent.

Contrast that with England in 2023 who started the year ranked 6th and dropped to 8th just before the WC. They rose to 5th by the start end of the year based on their WC showing. But dropped steadily again in 2024 ending the year ranked 7th.

Argentina in 2007 and subsequently in 2008 had a far better record than England in 2023 and 2024.

live with it.

Bullshit provide the evidence over an extended period of time

The only time Argentina have ever been close to being as strong as England is recently back then they offered very little resistance

Plus France, Ireland, Scotland and Italy were far weaker back then than they are now - just like Argentina were

NZ and England are always strong, Oz dipped for a bit but are back

Argentina offered so little resistance that they beat France twice at RWC 2007, Ireland and Scotland….winning the bronze medal. In 2019 we lost to NZ but beat Japan, Wales and England and that was glorious.

Low IQ at work.

No you dumbfuck - back then France, Ireland and Scotland were much weaker than they are now - much like Argentina were

The fact the Argies beat them tells me they won the battle of the average sides back then

Are you saying you have a high IQ old man huh?

France beat NZ , were they also weak…Shorty getting shorter and lower IQ by the minute.

Yes France were weak back then but very capable of pulling off the odd win against the likes of NZ - that’s the French for you

Would you like to provide the NZ vs France record in the years leading up to that game and the years thereafter

I bet you don’t

Minus IQ at work here

Yes France beat NZ in 1999 in the semi finals.

Yes and …..

You still asleep old man?

France are an effective WC team…they almost always make the knockouts. Argentina’s double win against them in 2007 backs up the Bargies high ranking in 2007 and 2008.

One would swear WC’s define a side over an extended period

Wow Moffie you are soooooo dumb

World rankings don’t count and now WCs don't count….next you’ll be saying playing doesn’t count.

Stop lying again Moffie - I said rankings don’t define a side over a period of a month, they would over the teams 8 year cycle

WC’s don’t define a side in total is what I have said - they add to the overall glory of the side, they don’t define the side taken alone for its only a handful of games every 4 years

WC’s are huge and the greatest accolade in the game but form part not the whole of the overall picture

Is your IQ able to comprehend this you fucking liar?

My mind and IQ can’t comprehend bullshit….if rankings over a 2 year period and WC results don’t define a successful team, what does?

"Before the 2007 Rugby World Cup, Argentina was ranked sixth in the world, according to the Wikipedia entry on their national rugby union team. They had risen to sixth in November 2006 and maintained that position until the start of the tournament. "

AI can get things terribly wrong at times.

Oops poor Moffie - nice work Draad

One has to wonder whether good old Moffie is manipulating the facts

He is that desperate to discredit Rassie and our Boks

So more nonsense to correct. Here is the source of weekly rankings. Look it up if you wish:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data:Men%27s_World_Rugby_rankings.tab

But here is the takeaway. Argentinian rankings peaked in 2007 at 3 and held that level till July 2008 after which they slipped to 4 which they held till the end of 2008. And in 2009 they achieved the 4 ranking twice.After that they never got as high as 4 again till 2015…for 2 weeks. They have never been ranked 3 again.

Aw gee Dave will you be a nice porker and thank me as well?

The data shows 2007/2008 was peak Bargie. Case closed and archived.

Just for your reference because I know the nasty columns will confuse you…..here are readings on a monthly start basis :

1/07 …6

2/07… 7

3/07….6

4/07…7

5/07…7

6/07….6

7/07…6

8/07….6

9/07…6

10/07…4

11/07…3

12/07…3

1/08….3

2/08….3

3/08…..3

4/08…3

5/08….3

6/08…3

7/08…4

8/08….4

9/08…4

10/08….4

11/08….4

12/08….4

The golden period of Bargie rugby, they never saw a 3 again. Last time they saw a 4 was October 2015

There is a good reason no doubt that you can’t move away from those two years - I wonder why that is

There is nothing golden about being 6 & 7th back then when you consider how much weaker the likes of France, Ireland, Scotland and Italy were back then

Thanks for confirming how average they were

Nice IQ work there