By Etienne
July 1st 2009 @ 1:17am
Loading ...Losing graciously, a lesson for the Lions
On Saturday, the Springboks clinched the series against the Lions. Since then, we’ve heard from the Lions how unlucky they’ve been, how the refs haven’t helped them, and how Schalk should have been red carded for eye gouging.
Here’s what we haven’t heard from the Lions: congratulations South Africa. You outplayed us for 60 minutes in the first Test and held on in the last 20 minutes for the win. You showed great resilience and skill to come back from 19-8 in the second Test to win it in extra time.
As a result, they’ve left a sour taste in what is supposed to be a great Lions tour (to be fair, Peter de Villiers hasn’t helped either with some of his comments).
I’m not saying there isn’t truth in some of what they’re saying.
But I believe one should be gracious in defeat, no matter how last minute or heartbreaking it may be. All we’ve heard from the Lions (and the majority of British press) so far are excuses.
So come on Lions, stop the whingeing and offer congratulations where they are due.
On a side note, I’d like to see SANZAR suspend the Tri Nations on the years of the Lions tour and organise tours between the two SANZAR countries not playing the Lions that year.
In other words, in 2013, when the Lions tour Australia, I’d like to see Australia focus 100 per cent on the Lions and have South Africa and New Zealand have back and forth tours (maybe two Tests in each country, possibly a fifth somewhere neutral like London?)
I’d also like to see them suspend the Tri Nations in World Cup years.
At the moment we have Tri Nations every year. So what if you don’t win this year, you’ll get another shot next year. But if the Tri Nations was played only every second year, that would add a lot more weight to it.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(60)
Ian Noble said | July 1st 2009 @ 3:39am | Report comment
If you bothered to listen to the full post match comments by McGeechan and OConnell you would have noted their congratulations to the Boks, in spite of being gutted by the outcome. Don’t always rely upon the edited versions for selling papers.
Kevin, Meath said | July 1st 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Think alot of SH commentators are picking out the comments they want to reinforce their preconcieved ideas. I’ve read many comments congratulating Bokkes. However PDV has unfortunately hi-jacked what should be a celebration for SA with his idiotic comments. Do you really believe that if AB, OZ or Bokkes lost a test to the lions or whoever where a player failed to recieve a red card it that it wouldn’t be a hot topic? then if the coach denied it was an offense and then seemingly condoned serious foul play there wouldn’t be uproar?
For my part well done Bokkes, the better team won, Lions asked them series questions and they answered them.
Were they lucky? hell yes! you aint going to win anything if Lady Luck doesn’t smile now and then, Napoleon was right. It wasn’t just luck tho, it also took a good team.
Lions did well for a scratch team, especially one that many SA fans predicted would be slaughtered, some of whom I notice on posts give lions some credit but many not.
van der Merwe said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
The manner in which de Villiers’ defence of the character of one of his senior players (and his pointing out that neither side has any moral high ground to stand upon) has been selectively twisted to portray him vigorously approving of foul play is nauseating, but not unexpected. The indignant, stuck pig level wailing of the British (and Irish) media, most of the fans and a number of the players due to none other than the fact that they wanted to play against 14 men for 79 1/2 minutes would be pathetic if it weren’t so laughable. Actually, given that the “99 call” was, no doubt, glorified and romanticized, and waxed lyrical to no end leading up to this tour, the squealing isn’t just laughable, it’s hilarious.
Hemjay said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Ian is right the Lions staff did congratulate the Boks albeit begrudgingly.
The reality is PDV’s ridiculous statements have overshadowed the match completely, seems more attention has been heaped on this bloke and his outrageous statements than has actually been given to Burgers act of outright thuggery.
I guess in some ways the Boks know how to draw attention away from the actual issue at hand.
As for the blaming the ref, I don’t know that the Lions staff did blame the ref (touchie) it was some disgruntled former Lions player and roar posters. Lions punters should be happy that Lawerence even mentioned it because the incompetent Frencman certainly didn’t see it. Had it not been for lawerence the incident would have gone unnoticed until picked up by the citing commissioner after the completition of the game. Any criticism should be dumped soley in the Frenchmans lap if he had any true understanding of the laws of rugby he would have red carded the guy. Come on it’s eye gouging Lawerences words were at the least a yellow loosely translated this is the bare minimum he should receive but your the match official so you make the call. It seems this guy had to ask his assistants questions 24/7. Next time the IRB is appointing officials maybe they should make sure the guy can actually understand his sidekicks and have a proper understanding of the game.
The Boks deserved to win what other conclusion can you have. For all the dominance of the Lions they still relinquished an 11 point lead.
Hoy said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
I read a transcript of the interview, and I don’t think it needed much selective twisting to portray him approving of foul play. I couldn’t believe what I was reading.
I have seen the “punch” from Sheridan, and don’t think there is anything in that, and I have seen the charge from Botha, and think that it is unforutnate that Jones got injured, but if he didn’t there wouldn’t be a charge. BUT, the eye gouging is not on, and it was deliberate.
I don’t care that Schalk gives all his money to an orphanage or he saves whales by giving them mouth to mouth. There is a particularly obvious and well recorded (vision wise) instance of him attacking the eyes of that player. That is inexcusable, and I would expect a longer ban than 8 weeks.
I have also seen the vision of Sergio Parrisse and his incident. I think it was completely accidental, and 8 weeks is a bit heavy. I fail to see how they match up the two instances and blanket both with 8 week penalty. They are completely different.
Jerry said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Hoy – what reason did Parrisse have for sticking his hand in Ross’ face like that? I don’t think he was setting out to gouge, but it was fairly reckless and there should be no tolerance for it. I think he got off light.
Hoy said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:40am | Report comment
I agree with you Jerry, but it wasn’t a deliberate attempt to eye gouge, that is my point. Not like Burger’s go. So my point was either the 8 weeks for Sergio isn’t right, or the 8 weeks for Burger isn’t right.
Is it reckless if you go to tackle someone and accidentally finger their eye? Not quite the same, but I don’t think Sergio meant to stick his finger in his eye.
katzilla said | July 1st 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
You could write an article with the exact opposite headline also,
Winning Graciously, a lesson for the Springboks.
Who Needs Melon said | July 1st 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
I agree with Ian. Due congratulations were given.
I haven’t heard anyone in the Lions camp bleating woulda/coulda/shoulda – it’s only been some supporters on some forums doing this.
And the fact is most of the attention has been on Burger for the reason that it was an extraordinary incident.
And I agree with Hoy that if there was any twisting of PdV words then it was done by he himself afterwards in a wain attempt to back away from what he had said and no doubt still feels. Why were SA officials apologising if there was nothing to apologise for?
Here are the actual words of PdV:
“I don’t believe it was a card at all”. What? You don’t believe eye gouging is deserving of a red OR yellow card?!?
“In the first minute already there had been a lot of needle”. This is crap. The game was 32 seconds old. How much “needle” can there possibly have been in the first 32 seconds?!?
“And if you watch the whole game you will see how many yellow cards they were let off”. Surely that’s irrelevant to what happened in the first 32 seconds of the game.
“This is sport, this is what it’s about”. No. That’s not true. Sport is not about eye gouging.
“If things were clear-cut then we shouldn’t even bother preparing for a game”. Huh?
“Everyone is entitled to their opinion”. The first true statement of the day.
van der Merwe, I don’t want to be one of your “stuck pigs” so I’m not going to go on about this. Maybe Burger should have got a red instead of a yellow. But you’re right – that’s life. No point bleating about it. Maybe he should have been suspended for more than 8 weeks but it seems about the right order of magnitude for me given precedents. So, again, no point bleating about it. You’re entitled to your own opinions of course – I value your posts on this site – and I respect your attempt at showing ’solidarity’ but there comes a time when continuing to defend that moron of a coach of yours makes you look as bad as he does.
Colin N said | July 1st 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
I’m not sure about Parrise’s. He clearly sets out to do something to Ross. Whether he set out purposefully to attack Ross’s eye I’m not sure, as when he ‘entered’ that area, he immediately pulled away. But, it certainly looked intentional and should have got a longer ban, much like Burger.
Re: the article, I think when you get that sort of bad luck, you are going to be disgruntled aren’t you? Certainly, South Africa deserved to win, after dominating the first test for the first 60 minutes, and looking far more dangerous with ball in hand in the second test. But, had the situtation (like the gouge) and effectively the result of the second test been the opposite way round, I’m sure theren would be some fairly ‘ungracious’ South African fans, coaches and players.
Most papers in the UK have praised South Africa as being a ‘great’ side for their resiliance, but have condemed Burger for his actions. Both the Telegraph and the Times rated his ‘performance’ as 0.
“The manner in which de Villiers’ defence of the character of one of his senior players has been selectively twisted to portray him vigorously approving of foul play”
But when he says that Burger apparently ‘didn’t deserve a yellow,’ and then reiterates these comments a day or so later, rightly or wrongly, the press are going to pick up on this and condemn them, because the press will ultimately twist them to suggest he condones foul play, such as gouging. I suspect the SARU or public relations had a slight word in his ear, to tell him to explain himself. However, I believe he then once again came out with another stupid comment.
van der Merwe said | July 1st 2009 @ 11:21am | Report comment
“I agree with Ian. Due congratulations were given.
I haven’t heard anyone in the Lions camp bleating woulda/coulda/shoulda – it’s only been some supporters on some forums doing this.”
http://www.keo.co.za/2009/06/27/phillips-launches-scathing-attack-on-ref-boks/
http://www.keo.co.za/2009/06/29/edwards-livid-with-lawrence/
Who Needs Melon said | July 1st 2009 @ 11:46am | Report comment
van der Merwe,
Fair enough. There were a few players who, gutted at losing, expressed their displeasure with the referees and the apparent tactics of some of the opposition players. One player seems to have taken it too far in the heat of the moment and made the rash statement that “it [Burger not being red carded] cost us the game”.
Saying things like “It was a clear red card” and “They should have played with 14 men for 79 minutes, and that would have given us a massive advantage” are stating facts that most of us believe.
Anyway… still no defense of PdV.
Hoy said | July 1st 2009 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
As an aside, I just realised that B O’D would never have been involved in a winning Lions series after three or four goes. Is that correct? Can anyone confirm or deny?
JohnB said | July 1st 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Hoy, I think he’ll only have won one Lions test out of 6 over 3 series – the first against Australia in 2001.
LeftArmSpinner said | July 1st 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
I fully agree. bad losers. I expected much more from “Geech” but the Poms have always been bad losers. I have lost count of the number and value of bets I have won from Poms and never been paid.
CronullaKiwi said | July 1st 2009 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
You would be hard pressed to get any praise from a side with a large pommy contingent. They are not world famous at whinging for nothing. Similar stuff happened in the NZ series,they even had the gall to preach to us Kiwis on how to be gracious and accept defeat after the french catastrophy then incredibly were doing the same 2 weeks later after the loss in the final. Having said that the Burger incident was appaling but this sort of thing goes on with the Boks fairly regularly Du Pleisse on Thompson last 3N for eg. On a positive note I thought it was a magnificent test thoroughly enjoyed it an did feel a touch sorry for the lions who surely must continue
Cracker said | July 1st 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
I was recently on a south african rugby website and their reaction to the Lions whinging was that it reminded them of Aussies. Not sure where they get that idea but I was quick to point out that the British (especially the poms) are the real whingers and that us Aussies play fair and cop it sweet when we go down. That’s how we roll.
Isn’t it?
Hemjay said | July 1st 2009 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Do explain Ricky Stuart and the kangaroos after the world cup defeat in 08.
Also please explian Tamsyn Lewis in the 06 Commonwealth Games relay where england were disqualified on a technicality which was utterly ridiculous. The Pomes were so far ahead there was no way Aus would’ve caught them let alone beat them even if she was standing on the aussie lass’s right handside. It was one of the poorest forms of sport I have ever seen to this day.
Every country has its fair share of bad sports and whiners but some do it better than others not naming anyone in particular.
Timmypig said | July 1st 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
We didn’t during the Eddie Jones era …. the UK commentariat was frequently mentioned the whining and blame from ‘Camp Wallabies’. Their observations were not without merit, either.
It doesn’t take much negative whinging on the part of the losers before any praise of the opposition is forgotten.
Timmypig said | July 1st 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
Sorry – that should read: ” ….the UK commentariat frequently mentioned ….”
Who Needs Melon said | July 1st 2009 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
This has tipped into the category of racism for me. I’m outta here.
CronullaKiwi said | July 1st 2009 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
All supporters really are sore losers and whingers to a certain extent. Kiwis in the last RWC, Aussies with the RLWC (Stuart in particular was an embarrasment) but the poms IMHO are without doubt the worst. They are also the most ungracious winners
Cracker said | July 1st 2009 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
Hemjay are you a pom?
Of course there have been instances of Australians being bad sports but hopefully they are the exception rather than the rule. Stuart’s blow up was ordinary and I’m sure most would have expected better of him, but as coach of Australia it also reflects badly on Australia. Anyway I’m happy to continue believing that Poms are whingers and Aussie’s in general are nothing of the sort.
Etienne said | July 1st 2009 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
Hi guys. I’m pretty tired of the whole eye gouging issue… I’m over it. What do you think of having the Tri Nations only every second year and having tours between the non-Lions playing Tri Nations teams in the years the Lions tour?
Darryl SA said | July 1st 2009 @ 5:27pm | Report comment
At least there is still some class left in British media:
http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_5407958,00.html
Darryl SA said | July 1st 2009 @ 6:04pm | Report comment
Ian Noble:
“If you bothered to listen to the full post match comments by McGeechan and OConnell you would have noted their congratulations to the Boks, in spite of being gutted by the outcome.”
I must admit, I have watched probably all the television coverage that was done post the match (and since, on magazine programs on TV), I’ve watched Sky and BBC sports bulletins (only UK channels we get here in SA unf) and I did not see any TV coverage of McGeechan saying anything other than that the Lions were extremely unlucky and his displeasure at the gouging (understandably). The media here in SA have also said that McGeechan has not once, privately or publicly made contact with PdV or SARU to congratulate them. Don’t know if that’s true, and even if it is, maybe he’s waiting until after the third test – which is a fair assumption. I’ve also now, since your comment, googled the web for quite a while looking for any quoted comments from McGeechan, O’Connell or any of the assistant coaching staff, and I cannot find a single article quoting them as congratulating the Boks. Not a single one. Now perhaps I’m just not as adept at Google searches, so I’d appreciate if you could find me just one article quoting McGeechan. Just one.
On the contrary if I google things like “Burger gouging”, “Lions robbed”, “McGeechan disgusted” I find pages and pages of hits. I wasn’t expecting there to be none in this regard, and I’m not saying their should be none, but perhaps you understand the perception of imbalance that Etienne is referring to in his article.
Billo said | July 1st 2009 @ 7:09pm | Report comment
Darryl SA, interesting comments, because my memory of McGeechan straight after the game was not that he whinged too much, but he is a very soft spoken guy, and maybe that’s why I thought he wasn’t overdoing the whinge.
On the wider front, newspapers thrive on controversy, and if rugby is going to get wide coverage you have to expect them to seek out the conflict after the game. When they stop doing that it will mean that rugby has lost its pull with the media, which will be a sad day. So it’s better to live with it than live without it.
Hemjay said | July 1st 2009 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
Cracker,
Definately no Pom buddy, Where you been mate if you’d been around long enough you would know I and the NH boys don’t really see eye to eye.
The last line of my comment was
“Every country has its fair share of bad sports and whiners but some do it better than others not naming anyone in particular”
This in itself was refering to the Poms as the some doing it better than others. As for the Aussie remarks they are just two incidents that have stood out to me. The later relay more so than any as I was there when it happened.
Darryl SA said | July 1st 2009 @ 7:55pm | Report comment
Billo, agreed. McGeechan is soft spoken etc and by all accounts a fairly mild mannered bloke. Not to be pedantic but I didn’t actually say that he whinged too much – actually never used the word whinge now that I reread what I wrote. Nevertheless, I did personally note that he did not make any comment of congratulation to the opposition, as most coaches are wont to do. Whether the TV media simply ‘canned’ the interview to maximise effect, I don’t know. Shame on them if they did.
Ian Noble said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:01pm | Report comment
Daryl
Clearly we won’t agree, but I suppose as happens in the NH there was a post match function where both teams mix and socialise. It is protocol that both captains make a short speech congratulating the opposition on their performance, regardless of what happened on the field of play.That is rugby in the NH, play hard, shake hands, have a few beers and thanks for the game.
I am just pleased that the Lions played the game in the right spirit, hard and fair, and they can hold their heads high. It is unfortunate from a SA perspective that the Burger and Botha’s incidents should be overshadowing an exciting and excellent test match, but it also highlights that rugby played at the highest level and in the full glare of TV and the media should be whiter than white. We have seen in football too many incidences of kids following the lead of the professional game and all of us want rugby to grow. If anything positive comes out of this debate and the powers look at the sanctions available and stamp out dangerous play then that will be good for the game. It will also help the referees and his team.
Colin N said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
Excuse my idiocy, but doesn’t the term ‘pom’ only apply to England?
If that is the case, why are you using that term with reference to the British and Irish Lions, where English players only make up less than a third of the squad?
When you consider, with the exception of Edwards, most of the voices of ‘ungracious losers’ have been the likes of Phillips, Flitzgerald and O’Driscoll, who are not ‘poms,’ why are they being labelled with this term?
Most fans can be ungracious in both winning and losing. Australia in the Rugby League world cup and in the 2005 Ashes (more refering to Ricky Pointing and him blaming the use of the substitute fielders), England in the 1998 World Cup and 2004 European Championships, New Zealand in 2007 World Cup. The thing these have in common, with the exception of the Ashes, is bad refereeing decisions, or at least perceived by the fans, coaches and press etc.
Ben J said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:52pm | Report comment
The Lions came here looking to avenge the last 2 series defeats, the UK media has understandebly supported them in their endeavour. They came to SA knowing full well that they need to stand up to an aggressive Springbok team who havent played together for at least 6 months. They came, they saw, they lost.End of story. It is going to be a very, very long Saturday at Ellsipark for the Lions. They have some fantastic players in Bowe, Kearney, BOD and Croft to name a few but the focus on the goughing incident is tainting a very successful Lions tour. The Lions have been no angels and this only exposed their lack of caracter in the dark moments after a loss.Shame on you. And if this puts off a few precious mothers and little children then rugby wasnt for them in the first place. Try ballet:)
Photon said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby_union/article6603768.ece
Case closed
I say again, get over it , you lost. You sent th best you had to offer and you still lost. The Boks beat all bar one of the Home Nations in December, and the combined side this year, they’re AWESOME. OOne last point, South Africans aren’t whinging bitches like the British. The most respected sporting side to ever tour this country is the 1974 Lions with the 1997 Lions a close second. Martin Johnson and Willie John Mcbride are revered here, you know why caus in this country we understand rugby, we understand that you give it your all and stand toe to toe, and if the other team wins you say congratulations and move on.
But that’s the British for you, only they ever produce great sporting sides, never mind that their successful sides also win because of fortune(Like how the 1997 Lions where made to look better than they were by incompetent Bok Management) or that their strategy sometimes involves queustionable tactics (the 99 call)
Colin N said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
“Like how the 1997 Lions where made to look better than they were by incompetent Bok Management”
Do you realise that these are the same excuses that you are criticising the Lions for? Pot, kettle, black springs to mind.
Viscount Crouchback said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:39pm | Report comment
There has been a lack of graciousness from the Lions, but I think much of it stems from their utter bafflement at the almost psychopathic South African obsession with winning at all costs. These Lions are very much on hostile territory: surrounded by belligerent brutes who constantly harp on about the Boer War and who would dearly love to pop off a few rounds from their Mausers. It is entirely natural that the British should be a little defensive and edgy.
The South Africans need to re-assess their relationship with rugger. As Stephen Jones noted in his most recent missal, the English do not mistake rugger for life itself. Rugger is merely part of the rich tapestry of a chap’s existence. Is the same true for the South Africans? I fear not. I fear their obsession with rugger borders on the insane. And when a chap takes his rugger too seriously, he tends to become quite obnoxious.
When a guest of mine acts sourly, I question whether I am being sufficiently welcoming as a host. Perhaps the South Africans should do likewise.
westy said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:49pm | Report comment
When did the Lions last win a series ?
pothale said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:55pm | Report comment
VC – “When a guest of mine acts sourly, I question whether I am being sufficiently welcoming as a host. Perhaps the South Africans should do likewise.”
Quite a pearler. I can see you saying that standing in front of the Great Hearth in the main Drawing Room at Crouchback Castle.
You have gone up in my estimation by a point or two. Not much mind, but your epithets do improve one’s age.
Darryl SA said | July 1st 2009 @ 10:26pm | Report comment
Viscount, dude, you need to move into the 21st century like the rest of us. No South African cares about the Boer War – haven’t done so for decades now, and oddly enough it’s the Lions fans who come over here dressed in all manner of Boer War garb at the matches leaving South African fans puzzled as to the relevance.
Stephen Jones eh? That most objective of all UK scribes. Rugger is not life. That’s funny. When the England team won the World Cup, if you read Stephen Jones you’d have thought Martin Johnson had just been ordained as King and that Brittania ruled the waves yet again. You never heard the end of it, never mind that any Aussie who suggested they were lucky to win by a drop goal, when the Wallabies were by far the ‘better team’ was met with a succinct “look at the scoreboard”. Funny how the importance of the Lions series win gets played down the moment the series is lost. So, personally, I don’t care much for Stephen Jones’ pot kettle comments. As for whether the South Africans have been sufficiently welcoming, it was interesting to read O’Driscoll saying that this has been the most fun Lions tour he’s been on. The *only* thing that you can claim that has sullied this tour is the Burger incident and I’ve said so much about that now, it’s grown tiresome, so I won’t repeat myself anymore. Other than that, the Lions have been well looked after, and by and large greatly respected on this tour. As Photon said, Willie John McBride, and Martin Johnson are in fact legends in this country – they were (are) hard men who took no nonsense from anybody, and that’s respected here. But this is Africa, so that’s not entirely surprising. Africa is not for sissies.
But thanks, your ignorance and denial are amusing.
westy said | July 1st 2009 @ 10:37pm | Report comment
We love sissies in Australia
Knives Out said | July 1st 2009 @ 11:09pm | Report comment
Somewhat unsurprisingly you completely miss the point of Viscount Crouchback, Darryl SA.
Stephen Jones’ objectivity is irrelevant because he is making a statement based upon personal observation, not an analysis of a player or anything open to public scrutiny. In any case, he has long been an advocate of SA rugby and has labelled them great and supreme when their results and performance have in no way merited that label.
As for your point, so called, regarding Martin Johnson, what point are you making? He is one of the greatest rugby players of all time. I’m not sure many people would dispute that.
I also don’t know quite what you’re getting at with your reference to the 2003 WC final. Very few Australians suggested that England were fortunate to win, hence that is why the often anti-England Australian media was generally so graceful in defeat.
Brian O’Driscoll was referring to the management of the tour, btw. In the context of hosts the SA media and public have by and large been incredibly disrespectful of the Lions. The only measured comments seem to have come from Gary Gold and a few of the mid-week coaches.
–
Photon,
Wow.
Photon said | July 1st 2009 @ 11:40pm | Report comment
knives out it’s ironic that you refer to martin johnson as a great player and yet your media continually refer to him as a thug. The truth hs Bakkies Botha,martin johnson , frik du preez, willie john macbride etc. These are all players in the same mould, maybe one or two where better leaders than the others but basically their players who were hard bastard forwards who never took any sh – it from no one, the opposition hated them but their sides fans loved, but you can be sure as sh – it that any forward would rather be playing with them than against them. Now some of you will come out and talk about hard but fair, but that’s not reality, everyone of the players above brutalised members of the opposition in the search for quick ball, the reason for that is, as any tight forward will tell you is, if you let the bas – tard know who’s boss from the start it’s a ferry ride home from there.
Photon said | July 1st 2009 @ 11:46pm | Report comment
One last thing, the other reason south africans love bakkies hs caus guys rarely lie on the wrong side of the maul when he’s around. He cleans like a machine, that hit on Jones was legal, and he only got banned caus that guys shoulder hs off
Darryl SA said | July 1st 2009 @ 11:51pm | Report comment
Knives Out:
“In the context of hosts the SA media and public have by and large been incredibly disrespectful of the Lions.”
I’m so tired of your assertions of fact that are actually somewhat unsurprisingly just your opinion. That one I just quoted is one example. Please give me some proof of this claim? The only journalist who I have read who has not had respect for the Lions is Keohane, and we don’t really take him that seriously here either although occassionally he does make a good point or two. But generally speaking the media here have been quite worried about the Boks performance pre the tests specifically because they had respect for the quality of the opposition headed our way. They questioned the wisdom of bubble wrapping them, questioned the makeup of our front row compared to the experience and talent of the Lions front row (or who we thought would be initially), questioned the wisdom of our centre pairing out of respect for the destructiveness of O Driscoll and Roberts. In our television studio and on Boots And All, a popular rugby show here, they have included Jeremy Guscott in the panel of presenters. That’s a sign of the respect we have for somebody like Guscott. British tourists continue to flock here in their droves, the Confederations Cup wasa success. Why? Because South Africans are generally speaking warm and friendly people who appreciate that tourism is an important part of our revenue and we appreciate the value of sport in our lives.
But it seems you live in a parallel universe rather out of touch with this one, and I’m used to you now so I just dismiss your missives with the irrelevance they deserve.
Knives Out said | July 1st 2009 @ 11:51pm | Report comment
No, that’s completely innacurate, Photon. Martin Johnson is not labelled a thug by the European media (your media?), nor is he the same as Bakkies Botha. Bakkies Botha is a cheap shot merchant and has been for years. Martin Johnson had a few high profile cases: slapping Justin Marshall, punching Robbie Russell, but certainly nothing that matches the wonderful and illustrious wine list of Botha. Martin Johnson is perhaps one of the best rugby players in history. He was an intelligent attacking player, ran great angles and set up countless attacking ball for England. He was also a superb tight forward. Botha just hits rucks. Johnson is the man who kept Shaw out of the England side for the best part of a decade. Simon Shaw is the man that kept Botha in his pocket for 80 minutes.
Knives Out said | July 1st 2009 @ 11:57pm | Report comment
Obviously you have a short memory, Darryl. Photon is a wonderful illustration of my point, as you are. I recall you giving no credit whatsoever to the Lions comeback in the 1st test, and labelling me all sorts of things for suggesting that the comeback had anything to do with the Lions talent as opposed to the SA substitutions. The Cape Argus hasn’t been particularly objective, either. I doubt the Afrikaans sector would be any more positive, but then I can’t read Afrikaans. Incidentally, I’m glad you mentioned those oafs on the Keohane website. Perhaps you should have a peruse over the various blog responses there. This Lions squad was viewed as ‘painters and decorators’ from Day 1.
Colin N said | July 2nd 2009 @ 12:00am | Report comment
“that hit on Jones was legal”
It wasn’t legal, but then again I don’t think he deserved to be banned, but you could also argue a similar case for Hines. Swings and roundabouts.
retired rucker said | July 2nd 2009 @ 12:20am | Report comment
The news Lote been sacked has been out for 6 hrs and no post on the ROAR, WTF Spiro and crew are you journalists?????
This is going to cause issues at the Wallabies because the rumor is he was sacked by email, that is completley unproffesional in my opinion. If true it shows Jon’s castrated.
There will be a player management divide if this has been handled in the way it feels.
Lote is already suing, how much is that going to cost the ARU in legals
Sounds like a shemozlle hope Deans can focus the boys
Ian Noble said | July 2nd 2009 @ 1:41am | Report comment
Obviously there has been alot of discussion in the SA press about this matter, to avoid any misunderstanding Lions issued the following claims by PdeV
“Ian [McGeechan] twice congratulated the Springbok coach after the match,” Thomas said, adding” “The first time was when the two coaches had passed one another in the corridor on the way to their post-match TV interviews, and the second time was while they again passed each other outside the hall where the post-match media conferences were held. The second time they even had a brief conversation and Ian shook De Villiers’ hand.”
Pretty definitive and typical of Geech, true gent!!
Viscount Crouchback said | July 2nd 2009 @ 2:38am | Report comment
“Johnson is the man who kept Shaw out of the England side for the best part of a decade. Simon Shaw is the man that kept Botha in his pocket for 80 minutes”.
Well put. You illustrate nicely just how ludicrously overblown are the South African claims of “exceptional” rugger depth.
Darryl SA said | July 2nd 2009 @ 2:38am | Report comment
Knives Out:
“I recall you giving no credit whatsoever to the Lions comeback in the 1st test, and labelling me all sorts of things for suggesting that the comeback had anything to do with the Lions talent as opposed to the SA substitutions.”
That’s correct. I gave no credit, specifically to you, because you were doing the same to the Boks. Fire with fire. Why should I be so kind to the Lions in the face of your ungraciousness? Fortunately there are others from your side of the fence on this forum who are more moderate and reasonable, so they bring balance to your exaggerations, false accusations and extremes. You will see I am more tempered and open with them as a result. As to calling you all sorts of things, I think we established back then that I did no such thing, and it was as a direct result of that, that I appended “SA” to my name on this forum to prevent any confusion with another Darryl, who’s name I have seen but cannot currently recall his affiliation, allegiance not general tone.
Knives Out said | July 2nd 2009 @ 3:07am | Report comment
I think you’ll find, Darryl, that I was openly congratulatory to SA post-1st test. I praised their accuracy, persistence and style of play. Obviously you didn’t pay enough attention to the appropriate thread and now you’ve openly admitted that you were being graceless for the sake of petulance. That is what I’m referring to, and not some low-IQ part-time Saffer.
Darryl SA said | July 2nd 2009 @ 3:18am | Report comment
Viscount:
Haha, what’s funny is you seem to forget that the Lions are actually 4 nations against 1. The venerable England fell apart the moment Johnson and Wilkinson weren’t there. So much for depth.
Knives Out:
I think you’ll find that you were *fleetingly* congratulatory and then went on a tirade about luck and all the rest of your boring and tired excuses and accusations. Petulance? See there you go again drawing your own misguided conclusions again. Weren’t you paying attention? It was because of your one eyed, ungraciousness. I think my reaction was fair dinkum. As for the low-IQ part-time Saffer comment – I don’t quite follow your point there but if you’re referring to me in that comment, *yawn*. If not then *yawn*.
Viscount Crouchback said | July 2nd 2009 @ 3:21am | Report comment
Well, 3 nations – and the Welsh and Irish hardly count as nations, more as provinces really…
Knives Out said | July 2nd 2009 @ 4:09am | Report comment
Obviously you’re not much of a rugby fan, Darryl, otherwise you would have known that Johnson and Wilkinson were also followed by Woodman, Leonard, West, Regan, Back, Dallaglio, Bracken, Robinson and Abbott.
As a rugby fan you would also know that it’s far, far harder to tour as a Lion than it is to tour with a single nation. Hence a different xv featured in every single tour game. I guess you’re not aware of that simple and very obvious fact. Although it probably does rub you up the wrong way for a team that’s never played together to manhandle the great world champions at altitude. Imagine that.
Oh… I see, fleeting, so you’ve gone from stating that I offered ‘no credit whatsoever’ to only ‘fleeting’, and yet you would also believe that for you to respond childishly to this alleged and misguided slight is anything but ‘petulant’? You wouldn’t last long in a Court, Darryl, that’s for sure. That’s confirmed from your ability to recognise the genesis of the ‘low-IQ’ comment. Is English not your first language, btw?
Viscount Crouchback said | July 2nd 2009 @ 4:51am | Report comment
KO,
Steady on, old fruit. One doesn’t expect a Boer to be up to speed with the latest developments in the English language. It’s rather off to expect as much.
Let’s play fair, old bean. I know plenty of chaps from Harrow who don’t know their “their” from their “they’re” – let’s not be too harsh on the poor brutes.
Knives Out said | July 2nd 2009 @ 6:58am | Report comment
‘That’s confirmed from your ability to recognise the genesis of the ‘low-IQ’ comment. Is English not your first language, btw?’
Not meant to sound patronising.
pothale said | July 2nd 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Viscount – “Well, 3 nations – and the Welsh and Irish hardly count as nations, more as provinces really…”
Nibble, nibble…
Nah – It’s too late at night. I’ll send you a history book instead. What’s your address?
Cracker said | July 3rd 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
My apologies Hemjay, I have noted that you have not seen eye to eye with several individuals/ nations/ hemispheres in the past. My question (of your nationality) was based on the above comment only.
Dean Henderson said | July 4th 2009 @ 7:54pm | Report comment
What really concerns me is that there is a decided trend on the part of English and British sportsmen to show a lack of sportsmanship.
I will give 3 examples:
a) The English loss in the Rugby World Cup final. I still have friends that insist they were cheated out of that game. The only point of contention was a “try” that was not a try, the foot was clearly in touch from replays. And even if that had been (wrongly) given, the Boks would most likely have upped a gear as they were cruising the last 20 minutes on a healthy lead. We were clearly the better side, and deserved our victory. The rest of the world would have lamented the “lucky” defensive minded English if they had won it.
b) The English loss to the West Indies in the Wolrd Twenty20. In the post match interview Nasser did not even mention the West Indies, not even a fleeting mention, never mind a congratualtion.
c) And now this Lions tour, which the British Press seem to somehow think was stolen away from them. Yes, Schalk’s actions were a disgrace, but he was sin-binned during which the Lions scored 10 points. Not enough of a punishment? What about the 4 high tackles we suffered, for which the last was going to be yellow carded until the linesman intervened. Or the offside, head high shoulder charge of O’Driscoll which took our player off the park. Or the punch in the balls by Sheridan?
I really enjoyed this Lions tour and the Test in Durban, hanging out with Lions supporters who were genuinely magnanimous in defeat. But all this whinging and whining has brought a seriously bad taste to the mouth and I really hope we take the series 3-0.
Knives Out said | July 5th 2009 @ 11:36pm | Report comment
I think that’s all nonsense, Dean. You have found three debatable (a and c are total rubbish, btw) and weak incidents that cross-reference sports.