How good is Jake White?

Hi all-

Trying to gauge opinion re Jake White.

He is obviously onto it @ burmbies and seems his recipe for success is pretty simple - surround yourself with good people with winning attitudes.

He has recently brought George Smith back from Japanese rugby to further bolster 'fetching' ranks @ brumbies with pocock as well as a couple of other talented youngsters.

It appears his mandate is to create a winning culture using experienced ex-players to create this mindset.

Clever.

So what do you yarpy yarpies think about the guy ? 

 I dont rate him - any national coach with an overall record of 67% over 4 years is just not good enough. He has done very little with the Brumbies, they never made the top 6 last year. 

Bringing in old washed up players like Smith and Rathbone is not smart at all. 

Apart from a small minority that disliked White because he excluded Watson, most SA fans think Jake did a great job, while being stabbed in the back by the suits. The 67 per cent Saffex cites is heavily influenced by 2006, a year of constant political infighting. Jake was actually forced to return home during a tour that year to defend himself. Setting that aside he is up around 79  per cent.....winner of a TN and  a RWC.

Canrugby

The SA Rugby situation was over the last 20 years littered by many really poor or destructive coaches and only two really intellgent rugby coaches.  There were the really clueless ones like Viljoen, Strauli and De Villiers.   Then there was the pretender - Mallett - who inherited an excellent team from his predecessor and self- destroyed the said team within 2  years and finally there were some really good coaches like Christie and White - both showed their real worth in 1995 and 2007.   

It is too early to make a real assessment of Meyer - there are good signs and there are bad signs.   One can only hope that he rids himself of the bad signs and start looking at better selection of players and improved game plans.

Now back to White.   SA Rugby is a minefield for any coach - backstabbing and political squabbling is always in evidence.  White had a terrible time as coach and constantly had to defend whatever he was doing.  White was subjected to the worst situation imaginable and he was right in not applying for the job.   Only a masochist would have applied.

White were attacked on all sides - but his critics could be divided into two groups, namely -

*   the nitwits who were onto team selection and critiized him because he did not accept their weird selection suggestions; and

*  the politico's like Cheeky Watson and some others - who constantly said they got instructions diraectly from Preisent Mbeki about what should be done - and nearly had a fainting fit (they were lieing) when White asked President Mbeki for an interview to get his instructions on issues directly from the president.

Cheeky Watson was particularly ferocious - he wanted the Springbok captaincy for his son.   He found allies to get rid of White from the Bulls hierarchy - who wanted Meyer to be appointed as coach in 2008.   The Bulls and the Watsons united - but did not stay united and split on the issue of a coach appointment.   The unions - who supported White - felt that the Bulls agenda was a disgrace and supported the appointment of De Villiers as coach.   In this case intrigue was the rule - not the capacity of the best candidate.  De Villiers were not prepared to support Luke Watson as Springbok captain and Watson tried to get him disgraced.

To be the Springbok coach is not a nice job - White made his mark  in that capacity by warding off the loonies and concentraitng on rugby coaching - and he was a good coach that ultimnately succeeded in building up a good team - as well as getting the assistance of a strong team - example Eddie Jones.  In that he was a good manager as well.   

I am in fact not suprised by the fact that he is making progress at the Brumbies - he will get the support of experts and will build up a team that will ultimately be contenders for winning the Super 15 trophy - despite the comments of our weird Saffex and other "experts".       

 Redsman - he's a smart guy and a good manager. The turnaround at the Brumbies with a bunch of no names cannot be ignored. If the Wallabies struggle during the Lions series I could see some changes at the top - would not be surprised if his name is in the running.

Jake White is a very average rugby coach who was elevated to godlike status in South Africa due to the Springboks having the luckiest draw ever seen in a major sporting World Cup.

Jake wasn't deserving of the position in the first place as he had never coached at Super Rugby or even Currie Cup level and he got the job ahead of far more deserving and proven candidates because of his performance as coach of the South African U21 side which won the U21 RWC in 2002 . . . a side that was so good that even a moron like Baboon-ou could have coached them to victory.

The one thing I'll credit Jake with is his introduction of the rush defence in the 2004 Tri-Nations. He caught the Kiwis and Aussies by surprise and managed to win one of the closest ever Tri-Nations tournaments (all sides winning their home games but the Springboks scoring 1 bonus point more than the All Blacks to edge it). Unfortunately, this same rush defence also proved to be a weakness because Jake White couldn't adapt once his tactics were sussed out by the opposition and it turned out that was the one and only trick he had in his box.

Apart from his lack of rugby nous and his inability to recognize talent, Jake White was extremely arrogant and he believed all the hype around him, which meant that whenever he was interviewed, he came across as a pompous and supercilious twat. His smarmy and patronising attitude rubbed many people up the wrong way - including rugby administrators, politicians and opposition coaches - so it was something of a surprise that he survived as Springbok coach until the 2007 RWC . . . especially if you consider his idiotic selections and his pathetic sequence of results, considering the strength of SA rugby at the time.

Then came the miracle of 2007. Jake appointed the equally incompetent Eddie Jones to be his backline coach but the Springboks continued to play the same sterile, stampkar rugby they'd always played under Jake. Amazingly, it was still enough to beat a very weak England side in the pool stages and the Springboks topped their group. A series of freak results saw the Springboks on their own in a half of the draw that comprised relative minnows Fiji, Scotland and Argentina while the other half of the draw was fought out by all the remaining big teams in rugby: New Zealand, Australia, France and England. Further freak results saw France beat New Zealand while England beat Australia which meant that the same weak English side that the Springboks had beaten in the pool stages ended up facing them again in the final . . . a final that the Springboks only just made after nearly losing to Fiji!

In a dull and predictable game where neither side showed any ambition or flair, the Springboks managed to beat the English thanks to a very marginal decision where Mark Cueto's foot appeared to go out of touch. It was the final bit of luck that Jake needed and suddenly this very ordinary, talentless and unlikeable man was a RWC winner . . . something that neither he nor his legion of adoring fans will ever forget . . . although they don't like to talk about the remarkable circumstances leading up to the victory!

Thankfully, after the 2007 RWC, the powers that be in SA rugby had had enough of Jake's rudeness, his self-serving attitude and his incompetence and they fired him. Jake's limitations were further exposed when SARU appointed Peter de Villiers - a similarly unqualified national coach - to take over from Jake and the complete and utter clown achieved very similar results to Jake.

I hope the Brumbies keep Jake and I hope he becomes the next Wallaby coach . . . because I really dislike the Brumbies and the Wallabies!

Hope that answers your question, Redsman.

Rooi that is the perfect summary of Jake - remember his pathetic chirp to the Irish coach that served only to galvanise them into beating the Boks that day.

His record in 2006 was 42% and for this very reason should have been sacked before the WC. Blaming that record on politics is complete bullshit. Every Bok coach faces political and administrative issues in SA and he was into his forth year, there were no excuses.

Jake is an average coach with a massive ego. His selections outside the obvious players was poor.

Yes, I remember Joke White saying something about how none of the Irish players would even make the Springbok bench . . . just before he got a huge load of egg dumped all over his fat face.

That was also the tour where Joke made the players wear T-shirts that said "Grand Slam Winners" when they arrived. How embarrassing was that?

Thought you would be happy with 67% it's well over the Bok's overall winning % and only below Mallet in recent times.  The only country that would be disappointed with a winning % in the 60s is New Zealand.

pfffft, i couldnt give a flying fudge about white and his so called dramas, i disliked him cos he was overrated, not because of his issues with south africas greatest rugby player luke watson.
if u were tot ake of ur pro-white glasses and look at his record objectively, u will see he achieved sweet fudge all. most of these issues have already been pointed out by rooinek, but im going to further reiterate on them as well as point out his spXV failures.

2004 TriNtas
Boks played 4 games won 2. took out the TriNats with a bonus point win, despite all SANZAR teams having the same win loss record.
note that jake white has never won a test series over the All Blacks, or even a TriNats where it was a best of three between other nations.

2007 RWC
as rooinek said and i have stated many times in the past, the Boks and jake white won the rugby lottery to get the easiest draw in the history of the game and prob any sport.
the Boks played england twice, tonga, samoa, fiji, USA, argentina, WTF!!!! o_O
how do u go through a RWC and only face one tier 1 rugby nation??? to make it worse, or better in jake whites case the tier 1 rugby nation they faced was england who were full players past their use by date as evident in their 3rd placing during the 6nats, i mean play england twice who was the NH 3rd best team and thats ur toughest challenge in the RWC??? again, WTF??? o_O

then after the RWC everyone complains that jake white was replaced by PDV, but heres a simple fact that not on person has mentioned. jake white never reapplied, if he was trully commiteted to being a Bok coach, why would he not reapply again??? IMO its cos jake white had an over inflatred ego hyped up by RWC trophy which he never realised just how lucky he was to win.

PDV went on to do things that jake white has never done, like,,,
beat the All Blacks in NZ, something he did twice
win a series over the All Blacks
whitewash the All Blacks

its true he never won the RWC, but had he been fortunate enough to win have the same draw as white did in 2007, does anyone here think he wouldnt have???
i also dont accept the arguments about white had it worse then PDV. i dare anyone to find more articles bagging jake white then PDV during their tenure, both had it tough but PDV had it worse and IMO still produced better results.

theres a reason why jake white couldnt find a coaching gig after his Boks tenure until 2012, unlike so many of his fans, clubs do the research amd as the numbers showed
jake white has a below average record.
not even in SA could he find a coaching gig, despite there being "so many" jake white supporters.

re jake white/brumbies
so what exactly has jake white done at spXV level to make him so hyped???

in the 2012 spXV the brumbies played a total of 16 games where they won 10 of those games. here is a list of the following teams the brumbies beat,,,
15th lions
14th force x 2
13th rebels x 2
11th waraths x 2
10th cheetahs
9th highlanders
8th hurricanes

the only wins the brumbies scored were against teams outside the top 7. thanks to this rubbish format, the brumbies were not only gifted 8 matches with teams in the bottom 5 from which they could still only win 7, but they were also fortunate enough to not have to play the stormers table confernce winners, but also the crusaders who finsihed 4th and both were semi finalists.
theres nothing admirable about just missing out on a finals spot with that favourable fixture, its frekaing embarssing they still couldnt make the top 6 despite evrything in their favour.

so how is 2013 going??? well lets see now, they beat the reds who are missing their two best players and played like kak, then they beat the rebels who are destined to be in the bottom 5 again.
why are we talking about white as a possible next wallabie coach when he hasnt achieved abything??? i mean FFS, talk about setting the bar so low, that freaking smurfs are tripping over it.
mediocrity, look it up cos thats what adquately describes whites coaching career since he became a Bok coach.

ABNZ, not sure if you're just a snot-nosed kid or if you'd still consider 1994-1995 to be recent times, but, if the latter, note that Kitch Christie had a 100% record . . . including a hugely satisfying beasting of the overconfident and chest-beating All Blacks in the 1995 RWC final!

Prior to isolation, the Springboks were the only rugby nation with a plus score against everyone else and it's no big surprise that the Springboks had a lot of catching up to do after being in the wilderness for so long. We're back up to speed now and I would bet that the Springboks will resume their dominance of world rugby within the next 5 years or so . . . and you Kiwis won't be boasting and bragging quite so much then.

Not to mention the fact that the Kiwi's rob the South Sea Island nations of all their best players.

Have the Kiwi's ever had to deal with a quota system in the selection of their teams?

Sas, spot on with your take on Jake, the bloke has achieved very little.

According to himself, he was going to be the next England coach and he never even got an interview.

Jake was bigger than the game in his own opinion and snubbed quality players like Watson and Schalk Brits

 I was talking since it went professional. True Christie had an awesome record.  Unfortunately due to bad health I think was cut way to short. 14 wins out of 14.  Only played the All Blacks once.I hope you are on the come back Roo you only need to win 200 games in a row for your winning % to get close.

Rooinek ...

It’s clear you feel strongly about Jake White as a person.

It does however seem to me that you’ve judged him as coach based on your take of his personality and not on his rugby knowledge or coaching skills. In other words, he’s a twat and therefore an incompetent coach.

A little unfair I think.

Results speak for themselves. Like it or not, he has achieved much, whether a twat or not and that against all odds.

A world cup champion coach he is … twice over … whatever the circumstances … it’s irrelevant. He was assigned a task and he delivered. End of story.

A Tri Nation Champion coach as well. End of story.  

He pulled the Brumbies out of their slump last season and looks as if he’s not finished with them yet.

Whether he’s a twat or not is irrelevant. I doubt he was hired for his sparkling personality but rather for his rugby brain. .

He knew what he was signed up for and you got to admit … he’s delivered the goods.  It’s that simple.

Comparing him to De Villiers is ridiculous. De Villiers is a rugby moron. He has always been a rugby moron and will more than likely remain as such for the rest of his life. Rumour has it though that De Villiers is a great guy. Sadly that does not make him a good coach.

He inherited world beaters and had the opportunity to take them to unknown heights. He was assigned a task and failed miserably.  He brought ridicule and embarrassment.

I am willing to bet that Jake White would have taken the team a lot further … holding on to their no 1 ranking and possibly even defending their world championship crown. These are all possibilities that were well within his grasp, had he been kept on. 

You mentioned that he should never have been selected as Bok coach and that there were a few others better qualified than he that should have received the nod.

Whom are you referring to?

Capone, I believe that at any point in time, the candidates for the job of Springbok coach should be limited to whoever the current Super Rugby coaches are . . . so the people I'm referring to in this case are the 4 South African Super 12 coaches in 2004 . . . whoever those were.

PS I believe I went to some lengths to show why I disliked Jake as a coach as well as a person. If you missed them, go through my post again and separate the facts from opinion. That should help.

Excellent post Al.

"Capone, I believe that at any point in time, the candidates for the job of Springbok coach should be limited to whoever the current Super Rugby coaches are"

rooitwit why limited to the SA Super 15 coaches. What complete twaddle. What if all the Super 15 coaches are second rate? What if there are world class candidates available but who are not SA Super 15 coaches.

The mind boggles.

 @Sasuke- The Springboks in 2007 did have an easy draw, but they can't be blamed if Australia and the All Blacks got knocked out before playing them.

England gained momentum during that tournament and it would not have surprised me if England had beaten the All Blacks in the semis, if the French had not beaten the All Blacks in the quarters.

Australia were also beaten by England who gained momentum during the tournament and were well deserved winners against Australia and France.

The current All Blacks coach Steve Hansen rated the 2007 Springbok team as one of the best international rugby teams he has ever seen. Based on the performance of the All Blacks against France the Boks would  have beaten the All Blacks.

I do believe that the Springboks were the best team in the tournament in 2007. Argentina were also playing well that year and I believe they beat both France and Ireland to get a good passage through to the semis. 

I believe Argentina were also ranked much higher than what they are in the IRB ratings- and were playing better rugby than France and Ireland

So Argentina actually beat France who beat the All Blacks. 

In 2011 The All Blacks had a draw not much different to the boks. They beat France twice who were playing very poor most of the tournament and also benefited from an easy draw to get to the final. 

The All Blacks also had home ground advantage.  (note- the All Blacks have only ever won 2 Worldcups- both in New Zealand)

The only team in good form was Australia who were lucky to beat the Springboks in the quarters.

In Graeme Henry's autobiography he said that the players started cheering when they heard the result, because they did not want to play the boks. (The boks forwards would have smashed them one thinks, given the work over given by the French).

On the whole, the world cup tournament format could perhaps be changed so that all teams play each other in earlier rounds before the knockouts to get a better seeding system. 

Although I do think the 2007 bok team was the best team at the tournament and many agree.

@saffex.

"Not to mention the fact that the Kiwi's rob the South Sea Island nations of all their best players."
errr any examples of these robberies??? o_O
seriously, i would like some names so that i can start aplogising on behalf of NZ rugby, or clear this matter up which many saffas seemm to know so little about.

a few weeks ago i posted a comment on another thread about this very topic. i produced the numbers which i researched in great detail and in the last 4 years NZ has more NZ born players playing for samoa, not fiji or tonga, just samoa alone, then all the pacific islander born All Blacks ever in its history.

"Have the Kiwi's ever had to deal with a quota system in the selection of their teams?"
of course we havent had that crazy quota system which i have heard hoskins say dosent exisit in the Boks but we all know better, but then NZ has never had the crazy race relations issues like south africa does.
yes we have race problems, every country in the world does, but south africa took race relations to whole a new level.
what im saying is if the quota system was a child, then aparthied was the twinkle in daddys eyes.

@rooinek,
the Boks did have a plus record over everyone else, but the All Blacks had a superior winning percetage over the Boks prior to the isolation,,,
Boks
pre isolation - 63%

All Blacks
pre isolation - 68.8%

while im not sure of the correct date, neutral referees were also introduced in the early 70s to mid 70s??? (could someone give an accurate date or direct me to a site where i can get this info for future refence, pls)

this is significant cos i remember as a kid reading from an old rugby book a comment from a saffa ref saying something along the lines of it would take a brave man to ref the game fairly, cos after the touring teams leave, we still have to live here. this excerpt was used in reference to the rugby mad saffa crowds back then.
i admit i dont know the exact date, and my reference to what the ref said was from a book i read 20 years ago, but where theres smoke theres fire.
take nothing away from the Boks in that era though, they did have a better head to head record over everyone, but the All Blacks had a better record and only to the Boks did they have minus head to head record, everyone else was completely dominated, including the lions who the Boks only beat 50% of the time in that era.

no offence to ur comments about the Boks regaining their dominance in the next 5 years, but i heard the exact same thing 5 years ago after whites RWC win, lolz, :oP
IMO the Boks will always be the All Blacks greatest rival, but i cant see anything which indicates that the Boks are on the rise on the next 5 years. all i see is the Boks will AGAIN be a formidable force, but nothing that the All Blacks havent seen and beaten before.

Sasuke, winning percentages against other teams isn't such a big deal for me, all I really care about is the head-to-head records between the Springboks and the All Blacks and the Springboks and British Lions. Those are the teams I want to beat, the others are less important to me personally.

The All Blacks only went ahead of the Springboks in the head-to-head as recently as 1996 (what a great All Black side that was!) and it's been quite alarming how quickly your guys have opened up a 14 game gap on us since then . . . but I'd like to think that at the very least we've now stabilized the gap and can start dreaming about closing it again.

What is amazing is that we have been competitive at all given the poor performance of SARFU! 

Lets hope Meyer builds the Boks as he did the Bulle.

SAsue you probably played more minnows than us over the period  hence the better overall record. Unless you analyse that in depth you can toss it away as any indciation of being better. All the signs are there for a revival. You can't keep the top dogs down much longer. We will resume our natural place at the top of world rugby shortly - I am anticipting us being the best by 2014. This year could see it happen.

Please wise up and visit your optician at your earliest convenience.  

Hope this clarifies matters for you saSUE.

@sharkbok,

regarding a few of ur comments,,,

"The Springboks in 2007 did have an easy draw, but they can't be blamed if Australia and the All Blacks got knocked out before playing them."
im not blaming them one bit for their lucky draw, im just pointing out that any tier 1 nation could have won the WRC with that draw, ireland, france, wales, wallabies, All Blacks and even a Bok team coached by PDV.
that was the point i was trying to make with the 2007 Boks rugby lottery winfall.

" Based on the performance of the All Blacks against France the Boks would  have beaten the All Blacks."
no offence, but its sooo stupid to base opinons on how an match might turn out based on how others performed. cos i could say, based on the performance of the Boks against wales who they alos beat by 1 point, ur comment holds no water, especially as the french finished 2nd in the 6nats that year and the welsh finished 4th.
but heres some things to keep in mind, the semi finals would have been held in eden park, where the All blacks are undefeated in the professional era and the Boks have not won there since 1937, before WW2, i mean jeebers, is their any saffa still alive who can remember that win???
then theres the Boks record leading into the RWC, where the Boks only won 10 of their last 25 games. is that ur idea of an ideal preperation to a RWC??? 40% win ratio??? o_O
compare that with the All Blacks who won 20 of their last 25 matches for a nice 80%.

then theres the fact that the All Blacks had beaten the Boks 4 times from their last 5 encounters and that one loss was against an All blacks team missing 7 incumbents , owen franks, brad thorn, Richie McCaw, kerean read, daniel carter, maa nonu, mils muliaina and conrad smith. as well as having jane on the bench and kahui playing out of position.

all these FACTS paint a differnt picture as to how the Boks would have fared,e especially if burger the wekaling was going to knock on the ball again like he did against the wallabies.

"I believe Argentina were also ranked much higher than what they are in the IRB ratings"
no the pumas were not ranked much higher then what they were in the 2007 RWC. thats why they were elevated big time after the RWC and given tier 1 status.
their perforamnce in 2011 as a whole plus the fact that points earned for ratings during the RWC are doubled are why they was why they were elvated in rankings.
during the RWC they were just another pumas team. a nation that neither the Boks nor the All Blacks have ever lost too.

"In 2011 The All Blacks had a draw not much different to the boks. They beat France twice who were playing very poor most of the tournament and also benefited from an easy draw to get to the final."
as proven above thats complete bullshit, All Blacks played 4 games against tier one nations in their win for the RWC, Boks faced 2 for their in 2007.

"The All Blacks also had home ground advantage.  (note- the All Blacks have only ever won 2 Worldcups- both in New Zealand)"
good point, note that the Boks have only won 3 games against the All Blacks in NZ, thats 3 games in 15 tests in NZ
also note that none of those wins were in eden park, the only ground in the world where the home team have won ALL their matches in the professional era.
so again, this proves my point that the All Blacks would have beaten the Boks.

"The only team in good form was Australia who were lucky to beat the Springboks in the quarters."
u mean the wallabies who lost to the irish in the pool stages??? (note the All Blacks are the only team in the world to win all their RWC pool matches)
also, are u saying that france wernt lucky to win their quter finals match against the All Blacks in 2007???

"In Graeme Henry's autobiography he said that the players started cheering when they heard the result, because they did not want to play the boks."
time to get ur facts straight again, the All Blacks had unfinshed business with the wallabies, especially after the wallabies had just won the TriNats. top that off with the McCaw/cooper feud and thats why they were happy to face the wallabies. im sure after the FACTS involved with recent Boks form both as a whole and against ther Boks plus the home advantage, excuse me while i pfffffffffft.
also, players started cheering??? o_O LMAO, i won his autobiography, so u know why im laughing.

"Although I do think the 2007 bok team was the best team at the tournament and many agree."
after alls been said and done, i agree. teams can only play whats in front of them and the Boks did that and deservedly won the RWC. so well done to the Boks and jake white.

@rooinek,

each to their own bro, but TBH im equally big on both the over all winning percentage and the head to head record.

ur right we did only edge ahead of u in 1996, but that year we played 5 tests, All Blacks won the first 4 and the Boks won the 5th at dreaded ellis park. so while we amy have edged ahead for a week, the fact that we ended the year tied on our head to head victory, IMO we only just edged ahead in 1997.

for me i love all the All Black test matches, i dont care who we play, they are all special and always get me antsy, but the wallabies, Boks, lions, england and france are extra sepcial, with the 1 Boks, 2 wallabies and 3 lions being the ultimate tests in that order.
while i rate Bok test matches higher then even the wallabies, IMO the wallabies are the All Blacks biggest threat for the immediate future and the 2015 RWC, depending on wether they are fit of course.
2013 is a one time exception, cos the All Blacks smell the blood of an englishman and i want them to grind their bones to make our bread, lol, :oP

All Blacks also have a superior record over every nation in their own back yard bar the Boks. not even the Boks in the pre isolation era came close to that record.
as it stands, there have been 44 tests between the Boks and All Blacks in south africa, Boks have won 24, the All Blacks have 19 and there has been 1 draw.
i want to see the All Blacks have a plus win on their head to head record against the Boks on south african soil, i want this more then i want to win a RWC, or to be exact, i want to have one more RWC then the Boks which should happen in 2015 then i want this record real bad.
once we edge ahead of ur boys on that record, the All Blacks empire will have touched all corners of the rugby world.
so keep fighting hard Boks, the whole world are counting on u to stop the AllBlacalypse from coming to fruition, lolz, :o)

@beeno1 aka storminged,
shut up and go play outside, the adults are speaking, :oI

@Sasuke-

Any tier 1 nation could have won the WRC with that draw- 

I totally disagree-

I doubt any tier one nation could be certain on winning the World Cup by beating England in the final, who had just come off back to back wins against 2 out of the top 4 rugby countries in the world. If France and Australia just got knocked out by England, how could they lay claim to beating England in the final, or even the boks who beat England twice in the tournament

England were the team whos form improved through out the tournament especially the forwards.

Their forwards became like the 2003 pack all over again- and they were immense. Not many countries could match this forward power- as first Australia and then France found out. Plus it was Northern Hemishpere conditions which aid in powerful forwards play.

-

It was also the best Argenitian team I have ever seen. A team that had destroyed Ireland whom at the time had their golden era of rugby, as well as France who had home ground advantage. (France who went on to beat the All Blacks.)

-

Can you advise what are the 4 games, or rather 1st tier nations that the All Blacks beat in the 2011 WorldCup? 

I remember them beating a very poor France twice. And then Australia in the semis. (seems similar to the boks playing England and Argentina)

The All Blacks record at Eden Park although impressive, did not tranlate into performance in the Worldcup- with a very average performance against a poor French team in the final. France are no longer a powerhouse in the Rugby World.

 The AllBlacks team wanted to play Australia, the Allblacks management wanted to play the Wallabies

Poie- posted a youtube video on the post world cup winning documentary. It is called road to the final or something. I will post this and if I have time shall even put the time within the movie where Graeme Henry says this. I assure you that the All Blacks team did not want to face the Springbok forwards. That they were confident that they would beat australia, and lesser so the Boks

RooiAaas all you care about is head to head against the Abs and Lions. Not against the Wallabies who are about 50:50 since readmission? That seems a bit silly.

But then taking your rules PdV has to be your best SA coach. He has at least an average record against the ABs and a winning record against the Lions. There is the small fly in the ointment....that you said we had no chance against the Lions because their coach was going to outthink PdV. But still given the result he has to be your man!

Chabal the human equation part is what so many simply didn't get. Watson turned out to be ineffective in tests.....just as he was always taken apart by the Bools. His little finesse game couldn't live with big passionate blokes charging at him.

But even if he was a potential test player, Jake was right in not choosing him. Rugby is a team sport, there are team loyalties and team spirit.....we would have lost that if Watson was chosen. And Jake's poor results in 2006 actually support his actions, because 2006 was a year the Bok team lost heart because of political interference. If Watson was around in 2007 it would have scuppered our splendid RWC performance.

Henry, Jake and Woodward understood and actively promoted the crucial role of a stable team in success.....it's not an accident that they were the last 3 RWC winners.

@sharkbok,

"I doubt any tier one nation could be certain on winning the World Cup by beating England in the final, who had just come off back to back wins against 2 out of the top 4 rugby countries in the world."
each to their own i guess but IMO any tier one nation could win that RWC.
but england did not beat 2 of the top 4 nations heading into the 2007 RWC final. they beat wallabies and france. heading into the quater finals, wallabies were ranked No2 france were ranked No5.

"If France and Australia just got knocked out by England, how could they lay claim to beating England in the final, or even the boks who beat England twice in the tournament"
had the wallabies won the rugby lottery that the Boks had won in 2007, they would not have faced england in the finals until "THE" final.
wallabies head to head record with england heading into the RWC saw the wallabies well ahead with 4 wins from 5 gmaes, including the last two matches where england were completely destroyed by the wallabies 43-18 and 34-3.
but its laughable how u ask how australai can lay claim to beating eng in the finals, when u and every other saffa here were convinced the Boks would beat the All blacks in sowetto, based on how the Boks performed in a loss in dunedin???
its called logic, IMO the wallabies would have beaten england in the final, theres a reason why they called the wallabies los to england and the All Blacks loss to france amongst the biggest RWC upsets ever in its history.
sidenote - u have often commented on how if morne had kicked all his goals in the deunedin test last year, the Boks would have won. had mortlock kicked all his goals and giteau landed his droppie, the wallabies would have won their match too.

"England were the team whos form improved through out the tournament especially the forwards.
Their forwards became like the 2003 pack all over again- and they were immense. Not many countries could match this forward power- as first Australia and then France found out. Plus it was Northern Hemishpere conditions which aid in powerful forwards play."
england forward pack contained the likes of andy sherridan, mark regan, simon shaw, ben kay, martin corry and nick easter. watch the games again and feel free to edit ur comment, LMAO.
england had lucky wins, their forwards were adequate for their challenges in the RWC, but for the last two years they had been the butt of the joke both in the 6nats that year where they finished 3rd and against the SH teams. the match against italy in the 6nats was a prime example as they put the english forwards back on nearly every occasion.
that eng forward pack was filled with either under performing oldies like the Boks 2011 team, or nobodies.

"Can you advise what are the 4 games, or rather 1st tier nations that the All Blacks beat in the 2011 WorldCup?"
All Blacks played frace x 2, wallabies and argentina, but im sure u knew this.
Boks played england x 2. they also played argentina, but it wasnt until their performance in the 2007 RWC that they were elevated of the tier 2 list and onto the tier 1.
had the pumas been considered a tier 1 in 2007, the All Blacks still would have played more test matches against tier 1 nations, including the No2 ranked team. Boks never played any one ranked higher then 3rd the entire tournament until the final when england had leaped frogged from 6th to No3 thanks to the double points given to teams who earn win in the RWC.

"The AllBlacks team wanted to play Australia, the Allblacks management wanted to play the Wallabies
Poie- posted a youtube video on the post world cup winning documentary. It is called road to the final or something. I will post this and if I have time shall even put the time within the movie where Graeme Henry says this. I assure you that the All Blacks team did not want to face the Springbok forwards. That they were confident that they would beat australia, and lesser so the Boks"
i have seen that documentary before and i will watch it again. but heres the thing Richie McCaw the All Blacks captain and the rest of the All Blacks found out that the wallabies had won after their win against the argentina. but the only thing that was on their mid was that they had just won their game and mills muliaina had played his last test. so there was as u say no cheers.
im paraphrasing here, but after McCaw had time to reflect he said (im paraphrasing here), we really wanted to face the wallabies because we had a lot of unfinshed business because of the TriNats as well as other things. he didnt express what the other things was, but it was genrelaly thought he was talking about cooper whose rivalry with McCaw was fever pitch, just watch ANY wallby match to see how the crowd reacts every time cooper touches the ball.

but ask urslef this, why would the All Blacks be scared of facing a springboks team they had comprehnsively beaten 4 of their last 5 times where the scores were
All Blacks win 32-12
All Blacks win 31-17
All Blacks win 29-22
All Blacks win 40-7
Boks win 18-5
in the 40-7 loss Boks played a B team
in the 18-5 win the All Blacks played a B team (but still mangaed to keep ur A team tryless)
top that of with the Boks 40% win record from their last 25 games plus the fact that the All Blacks are undefeated at eden park, where the Boks havent won since before WW2 and what exactly were the All Blacks afraid of???
u will find out for urself when u see exactly what All Blacks captain Richie McCaw said about the lead up to the semi final.

I can think of two reasons the ABs should have feared a Bok final.

Firstly the ABs can dominate every aspect of play  against rivals like France, England and Oz. That means, as long as they don't beat themselves they should win. Against the Boks they can be beaten up front, and provided the game is kept tight, their dominance disappears.

The second reason is RWCs are not like 4N or 6N tournaments. They are even tighter, with less willingness to take risks. So they produce close results. Apart from the Oz/Frog blowout in 99, the other 4 results since the Boks joined the party have been decided by 3, 3, 9 and 1 points. When things are that close a tough minded foe with a good kicker is always dangerous....which pretty much decribes the Boks.

The simple fact is NZ has been the best team of the last 17 years, but no team has been better than the Boks in the RWC.

 @sasuke

So it was Argentina. 

So in 2007- South Africa played England, Argentina(semi) and England final (3 games). 

2011- Allblack played France, Argentina, Australia, France. 

The only different is playing Australia. (I am sure that the Argentian team in 2007 was better than 2011, but that is academic).

(Australia had just played their hearts out making more tackles in any Worldcup- I could be wrong in that stat but I heard Australia made the most tackles in any worldcup). 

The AllBlacks had a nice easy quarter to arrived nice and rested for the semi.

-

I also feel that England were more worth opponents in the final than France. Having beaten both Australia and France this is vindicated and putting away the pacific Islands teams with ease in the group phase.

-France used to be considered an excellant team that were inconsistent that could beat anyone on their day, now days they are a consistent team that are consistently crap.

I also say that past performance in other worldcups cant be used as too much of a Yardstick. Fact is France used to be a much better team than they are these days(years).

It does go back to my original point that the William Webb is a fool, and the World Cup format should be changed so that all the major teams play each other in the round phases- and this is used as a seading system for the knock out phases.

When Australia lost to Ireland in 2011 in the group phases it pushed South Africa up against Australia and lets be honest the top 3 teams in the World are the All Blacks number1, with 2nd play a dog fight between Sa and Australia. Who ever the 4th best varies and is really academical because it various in the Northern Hemishpere and often the teams at their best are a few steps away from the big 3 at their best.

So having the 2nd and 3rd  play a knock out match in the quarters is ideal, because it is like playing a final and then having to play another knock out(semi) final against another one of the top3. 

So the AllBlacks achievement in winning 2011 was much the same as the boks, and the AllBlacks also had home advantage

Sasuke, I feel I should apologize for Twatbok's last post on behalf of all real South African rugby supporters. All I can say is that most South Africans are not as ignorant on rugby matters or as inarticulate as Twatbok . . . and please remember he is also the kind of pathetic loser who supports a side while it suits him and will then suddenly start supporting some other side when they start winning.

In short, Twatbok does not speak for all South Africans in his post. Just wanted to clear that up.

 Gosh somebody who supports a side when it suits him? This coming from the guy who said the Boks had no chance in 07 and still runs down that win....and who picked the Lions over the Boks. What world class hypocrisy!

@mozter,

"The second reason is RWCs are not like 4N or 6N tournaments. They are even tighter, with less willingness to take risks. So they produce close results. Apart from the Oz/Frog blowout in 99, the other 4 results since the Boks joined the party have been decided by 3, 3, 9 and 1 points. When things are that close a tough minded foe with a good kicker is always dangerous....which pretty much decribes the Boks."
thats a solid argument, one i agree with too, maybe im just being arrongant, but IMO once we have a few more RWC under our belts, u will see the ledger heavily in the All Blacks favour, just like every other record is. the only thing that stops it from blowing out right now is the fact that the RWC happens every 4 years.

of all the reasons people can bring up to say that the All Blacks fear the Boks at the 2011 RWC, theres one reason that trumps them all, homeground advantage.

since the game has turned professional, look at the record every nation has at home,,,

All Blacks have won 89 from 97 test matches, a wicked 91.8%.
Springboks have won 68 from 93 test matches, 73.1%
walabies have won 81 from 103 test matches , 78.6%
england have won 69 from 97 test matches, 71.1%
france have won 69 from 98 test matches, 70.4%

jeebers, every team has racked up 20+ losses at home in the professional era, NZ are 2 losses away before the finally reach double digits, o_O

so the Boks 40% winning percentage form their last 25 games as they enetred the RWC,
the Boks zero wins at eden park since 1937,
the All Blacks undefeated streak at eden park,
the All Blacks record in NZ as a whole,
the hidhing that the Boks have recieved from the All blacks in their last three matches in NZ,
and what that is as close to a math,mathmatical reason as to why the All Blacks wouldnt fear the RWC.

but heres something that every NZer knows and has heard a thousand time from All Blacks past and present, the greatest fear any All Black has ever had is losing period. its not the oppoent which dictate that fear, its the All Blacks legacy itself which i have only scratched the surface with their impressive stats.

GO THE MIGHTY MIGHTY ALL BLACKS!!!

@rooinek,

LMAO, no need for apologies bro, i dont agree with sharkbru, but each to their own.
TBH all u sharkie supporters have got bigger things to worry about with the stormers on the weekend, wont be as easy as one thinks IMHO, :oD

 @Rooineck- I can assure you that I would never speak for you, I would not want to represent you or in anyway be associated with you. 

 -

I never said I was speaking for the whole of South Africa when expressing an opinion but it is obvious that if people had to choose a representative you would be  last on the list out of over 60 million people.

 -

Can you refrain from butting in with your childish comments. 

Your garbage about running Jake White down is very unpatriotic given his results. Also it just seems like a petty 10 year old girl with your childish assesment. 

Do you plan to one day grow up? What is your age?

@sharkbok,

"So in 2007- South Africa played England, Argentina(semi) and England final (3 games).
2011- Allblack played France, Argentina, Australia, France. "
3 games vs 4 only because technically arengtina are involved, but IRB elevated the pumas from tier 2 to tier 1 after the 2007 RWC, so TECHNICALLY, Boks in 2007 played 2 tier one games, All Blacks in 2011 played 4.

"The only different is playing Australia. (I am sure that the Argentian team in 2007 was better than 2011, but that is academic)"
so the only differnce is a team ranked 2nd in the world who happen to have beaten the All Blacks more times then anyone else and have beaten the Boks the 2nd most times after the All Blacks??? u make that sound like a walk in the park, but even though it ended up that way in the semis, it was STILL the wallabies, a team the Boks had only beaten once by 2pts in their last 6 encounters.

"The AllBlacks had a nice easy quarter to arrived nice and rested for the semi."
this comment here shows me u havent seen this match at all. it was the most physical All Blacks match that i have seen for the last 3 years.
the All Blacks won 33-10 on the back of some solid goal kicking from weepu who kicked 7 from 7. only three tries wee scored in the game, two from the All Blacks and one from the pumas. the two tries the All Blacks scored both came in the last 10 minutes. at half time the score was 12-7.
bottomline there was nothing easy about this match, just watch the first 20mins and u will see roughly 10 power hits that both teams deliver to one another, plus a shitload of solid ones amd if u like it, then u will love the next 50mins which is a mirror image.
i remmeber this match in particular cos McCaw gets smahsed over and over and over again, but he was like the freaking terminator, kept getting back up until his misson was complete.

"It does go back to my original point that the William Webb is a fool, and the World Cup format should be changed so that all the major teams play each other in the round phases- and this is used as a seading system for the knock out phases."
THAT was ur original point??? o_O u got to show me how and where, cos i think u got ur wires or threads crossed, LMAO, :oP

"So the AllBlacks achievement in winning 2011 was much the same as the boks,"
bro, u havent proved ur point to me at all, how can u even say that when ur paragraph just above that comment contradicts that in the biggest way??? o_O
so did the Boks play the wallabies or the All Blacks??? NO!!!
so the All Blacks in 2011 wasnt the same as the Boks, cos the Boks didnt face any of the top 3 regulars at all, in their case the All Blacks or the wallabies.
to say nothing about the number of tier 1 opponents, cough cough cough, :oP

 @Sasuke- so we agree that the difference was that the Allblacks beat a top3 team in the WorldCup- as the one and only difference of any significance.

However lets not forget the All Blacks had home ground advantage. (and the in 2007 the boks played away from home.)-  The Allblacks lost to a French team the host nation playing in Wales?

-

The never suggested the 2011 semi was easy, I suggested the quarters was easy for the Allblacks compared to the Australia have to play the boks in the quarters.

In 1995- The boks beat Australia in the group phase, France(when they were good) and then the AllBlacks. This is one of the best tournaments from an achievement perspective.

Although Englands win in 2003 is also good beating many of the top teams enroute to the final and beating Australia the host nation in the final.

The point I made was that-

1. The Allblacks  in 2011 achievement is not much beter than the boks except playing a top3 team(however the All Blacks also had home ground advantage, the boks were playing away from home).

2. The format of the tournament is making it very easy for a team to get an easy run to the final with perhaps only one difficult game- if their is one unexpected result it throws out the seeding system.

3. (not sure yet- but perhaps 1+1= 2) These are both related points, not contradictory- or at least not intended to be interpreted in such a fashion.

 -

Both Steve Hansen and I believe that the boks had the best team at the tournament in 2007. This cant be proved because the boks did not beat all teams. If I can recall where I saw Steve Hansen make this statement I will refer this to you.

@sharkbok,

"so we agree that the difference was that the Allblacks beat a top3 team in the WorldCup- as the one and only difference of any significance. However lets not forget the All Blacks had home ground advantage."
nope, im sayng that is one of many differences. the signifigance of that comment is that while there are many differnces, that one is a HUGE difference.

2007 TriNats, Boks played the wallabies and All Blacks twice. the boks won one game against the wallabies by 3 points. they also copped a wicked hiding from the All Blacks 33-6 too.
2011 TriNats, wallabies win the TriNats as both the All Blacks and Boks rested key players durign key games, wallbies win the TriNats.
All Blacks then go onto play the wallabies in the semis who were not only ranked No2, but the current TriNat champions. both the ranking and the title are something the Boks luckily avoided.

the other differences are simple, the number of tier 1 opponents. theres a reason why the pumas were elevated to thats status after the 2007 RWC, because they hadnt reached that level ever. yes 2007 was a bumper year for them, but they still werent tier 1, thats the point.

england finished 3rd in the 2007 6nats, so they wre effectively the 3rd best NH team at the comp.
france were 2nd in the 2011 6nats effectively making them 2nd best in the comp.
those are all the main differences involved.
for the record, All Blacks playing at home or away means nothing, were in the 80% winning margin give or take when it comes to playing in all countries bar south africa.

"Both Steve Hansen and I believe that the boks had the best team at the tournament in 2007. This cant be proved because the boks did not beat all teams. If I can recall where I saw Steve Hansen make this statement I will refer this to you."
if u had really read graham henrys book, u would know that he wanted to hire a private investigator to account for wayne barnes and ka[plans officiating during the All Blacks loss to the french in the quter finals.
when hansen was asked about this last year on foxsport, his reply was it made sense to do that, for the All Blacks had one of the best teams in the comp.
are u sure he didnt say the Boks were one of the best teams in 2007 RWC like u did originally in ur earlier posts??? o_O

Saffx, No NZ hasnot  had to deal with a quota system, but in your past when touring SA had to deal with an Apartheid system that meant no non white players could travel. You need to stop bleating on about pillaging the pacific islanders. NZ is a multi cultural country so logical players of different races will play at multiple levels...personally think it's just an excuse of other nations who get beaten regularly by the AB's..the Boks included.

Rooinek SA been back in international rugby since what the early 90's, 20+ years and if they were as good as you think they are they should have been dominating by now...I mean it did't take long for them to win a RWC in 95. However the trend has been the AB's winning, NZ teams dominating the super competitions, so why should it take another 5 years to get back on top...if anything the AB's are just going to keep getting better and staying ahead of the chasing pack.