By pothale -
July 5th 2009 @ 8:03am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Who was the better team, Boks or Lions?
The Springboks definitely won the series last Saturday when Morne Steyn kicked the winning penalty.
They sneaked home by 3 points – scored in the final seconds of the match.
The first test was also a close affair, with a resurgent Lions in the second half just being held in check by the indomitable Boks.
The third test – a confirmed dead rubber and the hardest match for Lions to win on a tour was a comprehensive victory for the British & Irish players who scored three tries to nil.
The Lions were without five of their key players, the Boks made 10 changes to demonstrate the depth of their squad, according to their coach. Yet, it was the Boks who finished the series looking the more bedraggled and desperate, despite the Lions having played seven more games than them on the tour.
The overall scoreline across the three tests was 74-63 to the Lions. Seven tries to five in their favour against a SANZAR team in the Southern Hemisphere where the try is treasured much more than the kick.
Except, the Boks still won the series 2-1.
Independent observers might say the Boks were the better team, since it was the Boks who lifted the trophy yesterday after the match. They had the necessary will to win.
Australia and New Zealand were, no doubt, looking on with interest across the three test matches as they prepare for their first Tri-Nations match in the next fortnight. Are the Boks the team to fear or did the Lions, despite their loss, show how they could be defeated?
——————————————–
Poll Question: Who were the better team – Springboks or British & Irish Lions?
a. The Springboks – (they won the tests that mattered 2-1 and played a second-string for the final match.)
b. The Lions – (they were unlucky to lose the second test, played most of the good rugby across the 3 series, and but for injuries, should have sneaked 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...
(49)
sheek said | July 5th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Pothale,
As John McEnroe used to say, “surely you can’t be serious”?
The Boks were the better team, & not only because they have won both tests to date. They were tactically more astute, & more desperate to win.
They established comfortable leads in both tests before taking the foot off the accelerator. The Lions by contrast, were forced into playing ‘catch-up’ rugby.
As you say, it’s tough to win dead rubbers. Back in 1997 the Lions folded in the 3rd test after winning the first two. This time it was the reverse. The 3rd test dead rubber is a meaningless statistic, only useful for the history books.
When it mattered the most, in the first two tests, it was the Boks who prevailed.
Mr Grumpy said | July 5th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
The Boks won the series, so they were the better side.
Peter de Villiers showed a lack of respect to the Lions with his selections for the third test, which exposed the depth of the Boks.
The Lions were the more dominant side in the series – from the 50th minute in the first test to the equivalent time in the next match and for last night, but the Boks won overall.
We could apply this argument for the test period between 2004 to 2007, where the All Blacks were the best side but bottled it in Cardiff.
Sheek, the Boks had a comfortable lead in Durban but played catch up in Pretoria.
ohtani's jacket, said | July 5th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
It’s difficult to say. If the Lions had won or drawn the second Test, then the third Test may have been a different story. Therefore, I don’t think the overall points statistics count for much.
The Boks had the better team, but I thought the Lions were more impressive. There’s a few things McGeechan may have done differently in hindsight, but it was the most impressed I’ve been with a touring NH side in a long time.
It was a pity that the series didn’t go the distance, but the game was lost in that period in the second Test where there were uncontested scrums and the Lions couldn’t mount a platform from which to attack. Still, a hell of a lot more players will leave South Africa knowing they had a great Lions tour than on the last outing.
mart said | July 5th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
I thought Boks would win comfortably 3-0 and was impressed with the Lions….2-1 about right. Great 3 Tests, can’t wait for Aus in 4 years. Boks obv have the spoils but veeery little in it for me. I think personally Lady Luck played a big part…Boks had it in 1st 2 Tests, Lions 3rd one. All the slightly marginal decisions seemed to go the Lions way yesterday (including the disallowed TMO try). Consider one incident, the intercept try. Moyne intercepts with one hand, nearly drops the ball but it manages to stick in his other hand around his knees whilst he was trying to sprint. So much could have gone wrong there but the ball stuck and the try probably sealed the game. Contrast that to the luck (yes, good Bok defence too) the 2 times Moyne crossed the line in the 1st Test and didn’t ground. In all 3 fantastic Tests and hugly enjoyable – only spoiled for me by the France / NZ officials bottling of the Burger gouge incident in the first minute of game 2. These guys seriously did rugby a disservice by not acting upon an incident plainly seen by them (the lino). It was also an incident that, reflecting on the series score, in hindsight turned the series given the impact a sending off would hav had at that point of the 2nd Test. Shameful. I did wonder when watching the French lino recommend a yellow for the Bok 6 late in the 3rt Test for not much in particular whether he was trying to somhow make amends !
Hemjay said | July 5th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Blame the player Mart stop blaming the officials.
I guess also your choosing to ignore the fact that the citing commission didn’t charge Burger for eye gouging it was down graded to reckless play as somehow they seemed to think he had no intention to cause bodily harm. If the refs could have a look at the replays like we could then you could guarantee the decisions would be more inline with your thinking. But reality is mart they don’t.
pothale said | July 5th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Sheek – surely you can’t be serious?
Did you actually watch the tests, particularly the second test? The Boks did not establish a comfortable lead and then take their foot off the accelerator. If anything, the reverse happened, except that it was injuries to the two props and the two centres that lost the momentum for the Lions.
The match see-sawed, with the Lions drawing level in the last minute, before O’Gara threw it away with his mindless upfield kick and clattering into the Bok player to give away the penalty.
The Boks got lucky with a succession of penalties from Vickery’s collapse at the scrums. Lucky in the sense of they were allowed to keep doing it for so long without the Lions management doing anything about it by subbing him. The Boks backline got creamed in the second half – it was the forwards who dragged them through it. Hardly tactically astute.
pothale said | July 5th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Eh Question to Ed:
Your submit article section suggests an option: “Asking a poll question. We’ll embed the poll into the article – just ask your question and suggest some options for responses.”
How does this work then? Thought the embedding bit meant it would turned into some kind of click option with a % count for A or B.
The text as I wrote it has just appeared as is. Did I miss something obvious?
Harry said | July 5th 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
The Boks Pothale.
The Lions had a rolled gold chance in the 2nd test but if you go back and dispassionately watch the crucial last 20 minutes they couldn’t hold their lead, and nerve, and have only themselves to blame for the loss – they started “hanging on” for victory with 30 minutes to go instead of continuing to play. They lost that test when the cente pairing went off and the replacements proved inadequate. Boks shouldn’t have been able to score those last 10 points.
Great series and games, and there is no doubt Ireland, with players like Bowe and Kearney still young, have a great future.
pothale said | July 5th 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment
I didn’t intend for the article to be simply about a declaration on which team was better. (I thought the poll thing would be a separate bit to the article but I obviously messed that up.) I purposely did not state which was my viewpoint as I didn’t want to polarise it around what I thought.
But I am curious too about the wider implications of the series in the context of the Boks going into the 3 Nations as per my question in the last line of the article. There was a running assumption that Mart refers to above that the Boks would comfortably whitewash the Lions 3-0. They demonstrably didn’t. However, maybe they have been suitably battle-hardened for the 3N more than the ABs and Aus have with their matches against France and Italy. On the other hand, the strength in depth of their squad as claimed by PdV has been shown up somewhat. Etc, etc.
Hope that makes sense.
sheek said | July 5th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Pothale,
I’m not serious, & stop calling me shirley (boom-boom).
Okay, you got me on a technicality. Firstly, I only ever saw highlights of the tests. As for the 2nd, the Boks came from behind to lead late in the game.
From memory, the Lions leveled twice, only to eventually lose.
Based on their performance in the first two tests, the Boks must be favs for the 3N. But things can change quickly, & it appears all 3 nations will want their best players on deck for every test.
pothale said | July 5th 2009 @ 11:38am | Report comment
Sheek/Shirley – If you get an opportunity to watch the tests, do.
Based purely on their performance in the first two tests, I’m not convinced the Boks would be favs for the 3N. Or maybe you also think the Wallabies and ABs are more undercooked as well. I like the look of the Wallabies this year, and think they will ask serious questions of the Boks backline, in particular. The third test showed how Brussouw can be kept more quiet than he was in the first two matches – but he’s still a handful. Smith will need to be up for it – big time.
Rugby Fan said | July 5th 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
The Springboks were “better” in 1997 on a number of counts – aggregate points and tries included – and also ran away with the dead rubber game 35-16. It didn’t console them then and I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to dwell too much on might-have-beens now. The Lions had the wrong combinations for the first Test and the game was too far way from them by the time they found their rhythm. They should have managed the game better in the second Test but failed to do so. Lee Mears commented interestingly on that match. He thinks the Lions stopped playing rugby after 20 minutes and became embroiled in a hard-hit contest with the Boks. He believes that was a mistake because it meant the Lions lost key players to injury from these collisions and also left the team with nothing in the tank when the effects of altitude were at their most debilitating in the final quarter.
Eddie Jones, who worked with Jake White during the 2007 World Cup, wrote in the UK Independent that the Boks may now have peaked. He compared this team with the Wallabies in 2001 which, at that time, had won a World Cup and a Lions series. It was Jones who took over running that team and he says that it was it was sometimes difficult for players to maintain their motivation when they had already won all the big matches so he fears the same might happen to South Africa.
It would suit the Lions for the Boks to win the 3N competition because it would reflect well on the quality of their competitiveness in the series but the it may be all the Lions have done is give some clues to the All Blacks and Wallabies about how to beat the Boks.
Lions supporters are obviously pleased the squad managed some minor consolation with that final win. What sets the Lions apart from other touring sides is that there is no chance for the team to get any redemption in other matches. As individuals, they can go for victory with their national teams but this squad won’t come together again and I think that it’s the ephemeral nature of the team which makes wins and losses more poignant for both sides in a series.
What perhaps made 2005 such a poor tour is that a lot of English World Cup winners were in the squad to play New Zealand and the confrontations seemed a bit too familiar given that England had toured NZ twice with a full squad in 2003 & 2004. Certainly, the Springboks have faced Wales and Ireland a few times before this series but they were a lot of players in this squad they hadn’t really seen which enhanced the whole series as a spectacle.
On the question, then, of who was the better team there’s no doubt the answer is the Boks because they won the series. They doesn’t mean we can’t be proud of the way the Lions played and it’s disappointing that Mark Keohane’s rugby site ran stories such as “Losers can’t be heroes” because that seems to me to miss a key part of what a Lions tour represents for the game. Nobody much wanted to watch the videos of the 2001 & 2005 tours but the footage from this one might make for some decent viewing even with the loss.
sheek said | July 5th 2009 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
Pothale,
Yes, I do like the look of the Wallabies this year, but you can’t really draw much from their ‘Italian job’. While they also made heavy weather of a tired French team.
It’s difficult to know how advanced they are in their ascendency. But on the ascendency, they certainly are.
Greg Smith said | July 5th 2009 @ 4:52pm | Report comment
As in 1997, the Boks were the better team.
In South Africa, rugby is basically fighting for it’s life. FIFA has pumped so much money into football & local TV spews it 24/7 that I haven’t seen such a wave of conversion since the Christians arrived. Then add cricket which has passed rugby too.
Now, consider as spectator events, the British & Irish Lions tour, the IPL and the Confederations Cup football.
South African rugby is desperately thankful the Lions showed up, the way they did. Ok, it didn’t kick off like the IPL and the clash of the Confederations Cup didn’t help, but still.
I’m glad the Lions put in such a spirited performance. Many doubted the Lions could put on anything like the IPL or provide anything like the football extravaganza’s.
They didn’t but helped the cause of South African rugby immeasurably.
To me, it neatly frames the contrasting forms of assistance for South African rugby (Lions Tours) and the aid the IRB should in theory be giving development of rugby in South Africa and Africa.
If rugby fails and falls apart in Africa. I’ll blame the IRB’s neglect while thanking the Lions for their service.
van der Merwe said | July 5th 2009 @ 7:09pm | Report comment
Lions, clearly.
sheek said | July 5th 2009 @ 7:54pm | Report comment
Things can sometimes be self-fulfilling. Rugby fans are worried that the Lions concept may not survive the modern, professional era.
It will certainly die if we leave things as they are. For the Lions to be more successful, they need a longer tour, at least 12-14 games, instead of the current 10. This should also include two extra lead-in games before the first test, instead of the current 6.
This will help the Lions just that little bit better in developing combinations, & arriving at the most appropriate selections. Remember, the players who make up the Lions don’t generally play WITH each other. They usually spend their time playing AGAINST each other, & trying to belt the crap out of each other.
Building combinations & morale on a Lions tour takes time. So the authorities, both in Britain & Ireland, as well as in the southern hemisphere, need to do more to ensure the Lions remains a successful brand.
Ian Noble said | July 5th 2009 @ 8:17pm | Report comment
Difficult to call, but most independent observers would say the Lions played the most exciting rugby. The Lions brand is stronger and I see that Geech is calling for longer tours in future and greater preparation time. The only problem in OZ is are there enough teams to give the Lions a decent pre test challenge? SA struggled and there must be serious questions about the depth of talent in SA.
True Tah said | July 5th 2009 @ 8:42pm | Report comment
Greg Smith
I think you’re drawing a long straw by suggesting rugby is fighting for its life in South Africa. If thats the case, rugby in Australia is well and truly dead!!
Over 20,000 Brits and Irish travelled to South Africa for the Lions, how many tourists travelled to South Africa for the Confederations Cup or the Indian Premier League?
katzilla said | July 5th 2009 @ 10:21pm | Report comment
In terms of periods where one team comprehensively outplayed the other, then the Lions easily. But that includes the third test.
All to SAs credit that they put the Lions away when it counted in the first two tests.
I wonder why the Boks weren’t thinking about a whitewash with all their subs? Surely creating history must have been on the mind of PDV?
But then again who knows what goes through his mind?
Ah well, another thing on the SA ‘To do List’
Jerry said | July 5th 2009 @ 10:33pm | Report comment
Boks, no question. When it counted, they were on top.
I’m not of the mind to count halves or periods when a team was dominant, looking good and dominating stats is only good if it translates into points. Also, it reminds me of the Black Caps who’ll come out after yet another test loss and say “We won most sessions” but ignore the fact that winning the first 4 days of a test means sod all if you have a disastrous collapse on the 5th morning and lose.
Greg Smith said | July 6th 2009 @ 12:35am | Report comment
20 000 Brits & Irish you say ? I question these figures against the 3 Million tourists that visit South Africa per year.
I have acquaintances that ‘came for the Lions rugby’ but in fact were down to visit for business, family, friends or tour anyhow !
We welcome the Brits and Irish… but, they don’t make up the largest segment of our visitors. (Although their currency is welcome in proportion to their poor unruly behaviour) We tolerate them kindly, I imagine in about the same way as you have to put up with young Saffa’s running around at Lords.
Money can’t buy class – an old African saying
Knives Out said | July 6th 2009 @ 2:12am | Report comment
The iss, Jerry, is that the Boks were only on top for half of the 1st test. The Lions dominated possession and territory for all three tests. Realistically, SA only won the 2nd test because uncontested scrums were introduced, and because the Lions lost 4 key players. That strikes me as fortuitous more than a champion team irking out a win as only champion teams can.
Terry Kidd said | July 6th 2009 @ 5:58am | Report comment
I tend to think of this series as a draw. The Boks won round 1 comprehensively with the Lons only getting close when PdV made his confusing substitutions. Even though the score was against them I thought round 2 was a marginal Lions win on points and the Boks were very unconvincing. Round 3 I’m counting as a draw because although the Lions played well and won the Boks made 10 changes and the head space of many of the Boks would have been looking towards the 3N as this series was won.
Maybe I’m being simplistic here but I’m no longer as worried about the Boks as I previously was. The one thing that this series did show was how crucial it is for the coaches to get their selections right.
Knives Out said | July 6th 2009 @ 7:05am | Report comment
Don’t think I agree with that analysis, Terry. In the 1st test SA garnered their points from the set piece. Adam Jones came on in the 45th minute and Mtawarira and Smit departed in the 65th minute. Advantage lost, game on. The myth seems to have developed that PdV threw the game away. That the majority of the SA players were looking exhausted at the end of the 1st half only confirms my belief. Conversely, the dynamic of the 2nd test was completely altered by the loss of the Lions props who had a massive advantage at scrum time. Also, you forget to mention that the Lions team in the 3rd test featured changes in Sheridan, Vickery, Worsley, Martyn Williams, Shane Williams, Flutey, Bowe to 13 and Monye. Further, SA hardly ever lose at Ellis park and Kirchner, Olivier and Steyn were a lot of SA’s 1st picks prior to the test series. My opinion is that a lot of SA players were shown up to be one-dimensional.
Hemjay said | July 6th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
What does this type of question really do except prolong the angst.
The Boks were clearly the better the team hence why they won 2-1
If we were to be blatant about the whole series the Lions only got close in the first test because the Mad Hatter made all the substitions and the Boks took their foot of the pedal.
The second test was more like a schoolyard scrap where South Africa seemed intent on playing as dirty as they could whilst still playing enough rugby to secure the win. Lets get real here these same posters moaning about the Lions injuries are the same posters who would not have a bar of it when it came to the All Blacks missing 11 players due to injury, also these same posters now saying that the Lions / Boks were weakend are the same posters who vilified any AB supporter who dared insinuate such.
Its a fact the lions let an 11point lead slip in the second test , Fact that Burger played dirty in the first 32 seconds fact O’Gara had an almighty brain explosion, fact PDV is a few weet-bix short of a packet should we go on.
The Lions won the third test comfortably over a team missing I am lead to believe 10 players. yes the Lions were missing players also but not as many also not to mention the fact that the entire Lions squad is made up from the best of four nations so one would expect the second stringers still to be up there. As for the Boks they have shown that they too are just as incapable when wholesale substitutions are made and I dare say Australia will be in the same boat if 10 of their frontline players were dropped from the team.
But amazing how its ok for everyone else to bemoan the missing stars but as soon as the All Black supporters do they are crucified.
Boks better team they won when it counted the first two tests.
Terry Kidd said | July 6th 2009 @ 7:20am | Report comment
No worries KO its only personal opinion. By the way I agree with what you say about the first 2 tests, its what I meant but probably didn’t say in my post.
Knives Out said | July 6th 2009 @ 7:34am | Report comment
No worries, Terry. As you can tell by my post, I’m probably still quite disgruntled.
Terry Kidd said | July 6th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Lol KO …. as I will be if the Wallabies don’t perform. I don’t particularly care if they get beaten as long as they play well …. just thought about that, and its not true … I will bloody well care if we get beaten !!!!!
pothale said | July 6th 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Hemjay – it isn’t about you bemoaning missing players from the NZ/France match or you thinking of crucifixion or vilification… – the point of this particular debate is that despite injuries/missing players on both sides, the three tests gave a good opportunity to assess which of the two teams of SA and Lions….oh forget it. Life’s too short.
OldManEmu said | July 6th 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
I saw only highlights of the first two tests so really cannot comment on those matches but I did sit up for Saturday’s test.
The Boks were comprehensively outplayed but it ws definitely a weakened Boks team. That said the Lions were very good in all factes of the game. perhpas their biggets strength was their discipline. It looked to me like the Boks were trying to needle the Lions and provoke a fight but the Lions did not buy into it at any point.
The much vaunted Paul O’Connell was a bit disappointing for mine – he seemed to spend most of the game standing near the break dwon telling the referee why there should have been a penalty in favour of the Lions. I thought his locking partner Simon Shaw was much more impressive.
Great test match though.
Hemjay said | July 6th 2009 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
The Lions just weren’t good enough never were good enough to win the series. The Boks basically gave the Lions the big finger and said here you go kitty play the second stringers because your not worthy to have a third shot at our best team.
Who gives a flying …. who scored more tries and points overall, What really matters is who had the highest amount of points after 80 minutes of rugby in the three games. The game of rugby as I have just said is for 80mins and it doesn’t matter when in that 80 minutes you score points or how you score them as long as you score more than your opponents and the Boks did this twice in the first two tests. The second coming back from 11 points down to take the game after a schoolyard decision by O’Gara to clinch the game and the series on the final whistle.
The Lions did come out and win the third game but seriously what will they take from it, the Boks gave them no respect fielding a makeshift team and were more interested in their little protest than playing a meaningless dead rubber match. How much pride did it salvage “we lost the series but we beat a 2nd string SA in the final match”. Start talking salvaging pride and the Lions being the better team when you / they actually win a series.
Mungehead said | July 6th 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
I thought the Boks were deserved winners. Having said that, I was impressed by the Lions in the last game, to the point where I have to admit they are (or were) a considerably better side than I gave them credit for. They did lose the series… but only just. They certainly came to play, and it’s disrespectful to say second stringers were chosen for the last game against them. There is a lot of talent and depth in the Boks squad right now and it’s hard to say who their best performers are. (I’m back, btw, not entirely recovered but I’ll take what I can get)
bennalong said | July 6th 2009 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
Great series ,a ton of passion!
Could have gone either way, until the third when the Boks turned up but lacked the passion/intensity of the first two. Predictable. That’s why you pray for 1-all going into the third.
Nevertheless, a great series, and ……………………………….nothing to do with the bloody World Cup promotion.!!!
Hemjay said | July 6th 2009 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
Mungehead,
How else can you describe a ten missing 10 first choice players?
They (SA) were proven to be lacking in the depth department greatly. The Lions deserved a little more respect than that, I don’t know if it was arrogance or that PDV and his cohorts really did think they could beat the Lions with this makeshift team.
if anything it proved that the Boks are just as vulnerable as the All Blacks when over half of their team are out. Thankfully for the Boks it was a choice a silly one maybe to field such an inept team who to me looked like they would rather still be celebrating the series win with their mates than have to play another game.
If anyone is being disrespectful it was the Springboks and their disgusting show of protesting Bothas suspension it was infantile at best only compounded by the thrashing dealt to them by the Lions in the last test. In stating that I still believe the Boks to have been the better team. A disrespectful but a superior side. Dominating rucks, superior territory, greater turnovers count for absolutely nothing when you lose the game and the series it’s just fanciful hope and shoulda, coulda woulda. Yes the Lions put on a good show but they weren’t quite up to the mark.
Ben J said | July 6th 2009 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
The first 2 games were probably the most intense I have seen for a while but overall the Lions came, were beaten in the first 2 games and then the Boks were outa there for the 3rd game. Meaningless encounter but still it salvaged some pride for the Lions.
pothale said | July 6th 2009 @ 8:56pm | Report comment
South Africa were not missing 10 first choice players. That is a myth – first expounded by the SA media, and has been bought into by others subsequently.
The match day 22 – and that’s what counts since the bench is used so much these day – contained a substantial number of top players. After that it’s down to how the management decides to use them. Spies was brought on as a substitute for a winger!
The Boks midfield pairing was the one of the form pairings during the S14 according to many SA commentators/fans. Brussouw started the match as many people felt he should have in the first two tests. de Plessis and Botha were absent.
This theory of SA fielding a weakened team of 10 is baloney. At most their back three were the most inexperienced.
The Lions were down their two form props – and Vickery got picked as a result of this.
They were down their first choice centres in O’Driscoll and Roberts.
The sides were evenly enough matched, and many SA commentators before the match believed their team would be more than a handful for the Lions given it was the final test, psychologically the Lions were in a bad place, and the Boks having won the series badly wanted to have the whitewash – Smit said as much afterwards.
Shaw did not play as well as he had did in the second test, and got himself sin-binned. Flutey and Williams had been playing second fiddle to others for the other tests.
This argument has echoes of comments in another thread that I started some weeks ago about double standards by SH teams in fielding supposed ‘weakened’ or ‘experimental’ teams. When they lose – that’s the first excuse that gets trotted out.
OldManEmu said | July 6th 2009 @ 9:19pm | Report comment
Yep good call Pot – it was a team that SA picked to win 3-0 – no doubt about that – but you would accept it was weakened without Botha and Burger at the least.
Knives Out said | July 6th 2009 @ 9:31pm | Report comment
Hemjay,
I think it would be useful for you were I to introduce some thoughts for you to mull over:
1 – ‘The Boks were clearly the better the team hence why they won 2-1′
This is true to a point. However, by extension your argument suggests that in every single sporting contest in the entire history of sport the better team was the winner. Any real fan of sports knows that the best teams don’t always win, the winners simply do. There is a difference and somewhat typically you oversimplify a rather complex matter.
2 – ‘If we were to be blatant about the whole series the Lions only got close in the first test because the Mad Hatter made all the substitions and the Boks took their foot of the pedal.’
Well, had you watched the 1st test then you would have noted that the Lions had two tries disallowed in the 1st half. You might also have noticed that SA took their points from the set piece. This advantage was removed when Adam Jones arrived (in the 45th minute). Mtawarira and Smit remained on the field until the 65th minute. I noted that the Springboks looked exhausted at the end of the 1st half, and unless you can explain how the introduction of Fourie and Rossouw nearly lost the game for SA I am inclined to think that the substitutions had little effect on the ability of SA to win that test. Again, you oversimplify a complex issue.
It’s interesting how you ignore the 2nd test, Hemjay. I suppose you’ve got no comment to make about how the uncontested scrums changed the dynamic of the game?
3 – ‘The Lions won the third test comfortably over a team missing I am lead to believe 10 players. yes the Lions were missing players also but not as many also not to mention the fact that the entire Lions squad is made up from the best of four nations so one would expect the second stringers still to be up there.’
Why are you lead to believe? Don’t you check things before you get those fingers typing? The Lions changes included Sheridan, Vickery, Worsley, M. Williams, S. Williams, Flutey, Bowe (Who has played less than 10 games at 13) and Monye. So that’s 8 changes to 9 changes for the Springboks.
One – or at least anybody moderately informed – would not expect the second stringers to be ‘up there’. This xv was the 10th different xv of the tour. The four home nations all play different systems, and yet somehow you think it’s realistic that these players should slot into a a team with players they have never played with before? That would not have been realistic 30 years ago, let alone in the professional era.
Hemjay said | July 6th 2009 @ 10:12pm | Report comment
Knives Out,
Here you are once again spreading your utter nonsense and only writing in parts if you go back through the various posts I have made you will notice I have spoken about every single test. The second test I mentioned how the boks managed to claw back an 11point lead, if you actually read you may also find it is the same post where I talk about the game of rugby being an 80minute game and it doesn’t matter when or how you get the points as long as you get more than your opponent. I have been rather courteous towards your Lions team but you the great one still try to discredit me. Its time you grew up Knives and pulled yourself together and dropped the sensless crap you deliver in here time after time. I see it totally different to you at times and I believe your methods of determining who is the better team to be fundamentally flawed. You see the best team wins the game and takes the spoils the best team does not gain all the territory and make the most tackles create the most space to end up on the wrong side of the ledger, the best team does not relinquish an 11point lead even when injuries occur.
If I was to use your phiosophy that would mean the All Blacks are still the best team in the world and the best team at every single world cup right after all we have totally dominated most teams in every aspect of play have we not. In the June tests we were still the best team right because we had 11 injuries so if we weren’t injured we still would have won right? Is this not what your basing you ludicrous claims on Knives Out?
Also Knives once again you clearly only read what you want to read, because if you had you will also notice how I mentioned the Lions were down on players also yet there back up were a lot better than what the Boks could offer.
Funny how even when I am agreeing with you, that you still find the need to have a go at me, its become like some childish obsession with you.
So to answer your three questions Knives go back and read what was written before typing because you son are obviously someone who reacts before reading!
pothale said | July 6th 2009 @ 11:21pm | Report comment
OME – I accept that the SA team was weakened in the front five by the absence of Botha and possibly de Plessis .
Burger being absent? I think most people, by the end of the provincial matches let alone the tests, would have picked Brussouw to start, and figure it was an advantage to them whenever he came on. So, somewhat ironically, Burger’s banning may have been a great blessing in disguise. And it strengthened the team. And that’s the view of quite a few SA fans, not just me.
I also think the team was weakened by the absence of Habana who was on the bench and not introduced, and Pietersen. But that’s the choice and decision of the coach – in the same way that I would fault the Lions management for not taking off Vickery sooner in the first test and brought on Jones.
The Lions, had no choice but to find replacements for Jenkins & Jones and Roberts/O’Driscoll. That weakened the Lions team inasmuch as they would likely have been picked if they were available.
Putting out a weakened team because that’s all you have available (as someone bleats on about in relation to the NZ/France first test) is one thing, as opposed to putting out alternatives that you think can do the job with sufficient support from senior professionals around them, whilst resting other players, is a different kettle of fish.
Anyway. Enough already.
I think the Lions played the better rugby over the three matches, but ultimately were the architects of their own downfall, through poor critical management and playing decisions. Such as Vickery’s late removal in the first test. O’Gara’s selection on the bench, instead of the better defensive Hook, in the second. Monye’s failure to score through being wrong-handed in the first test. O’Driscoll’s reckless tackle in the second, thereby removing himself from the field of play. O’Gara’s ‘cmon, let’s win this’ decision in the dying seconds of the second test.
Such are the small moments between winning and losing.
The Boks are not, in my view, sitting pretty going into the 3 Nations. And, if they think they are, Australia and NZ should have something to say about that. If they don’t, shame on them. This Boks team is eminently beatable.
Knives Out said | July 6th 2009 @ 11:35pm | Report comment
Funny you should say that Pothale, this very lunchtime I rendezvoused with Mr. Victor Chandler and whacked a bet on the Aussies to take this year’s title.
Ian Noble said | July 7th 2009 @ 12:01am | Report comment
A pity good analysis from Bob Dwyer,
http://www.heavensgame.com/bob-dwyers-rugby-workshops/bob-dwyer-analysis/bob-dwyer-analysis-lions-rampant.html
Greg Smith said | July 7th 2009 @ 12:20am | Report comment
- ‘eminently beatable’ – I’ve heard that said of teams from Tonga, Canada, Argentina and such… only to face a tough battle
The margins are so small. And a little thing like Nelson Mandela putting in a personal inspirational visit at kick off could swing a match. So could a citing or yellows and reds.
We’ll see if South Africa are going to suffer further citings. Oz and Nz seem to hog the finals and South Africa is the perennial 3rd wheel. More an indication of ‘politics’ than real rugby prowess and skill.
It all comes down to winning away … while NZ & OZ get fair treatment in SA (and often win)… the same cannot be said of winning in New Zealand (especially) or Australia.
Jim said | July 7th 2009 @ 4:30am | Report comment
The lions for mine – im not disputing that the Boks won but if you look through the tests the lions brought alot more to the tests in the backs and had their share of dominance up front. The boks were also assisted by some very average referring – Burger should have been sent off, Fouries try was very fortunate to have been given and even the penalty against O’Gara was pretty marginal. That said it was tight and at the end of the day the bounce of the ball of the ball and the ref whistle both fell in favour of the boks hence they won the series. I don’t fancy their chances in the Tri Nations though. Compared to both NZ and Australia they are both poorly selected and poorly coached.
On a level playing field this years Tri Nations would be the most even possibly in the history of the competition with NZ falling back to the pack and Australia continuing their impressive development. However the Boks have De Villiers in charge and it’s a sure thing that their best side won’t make it onto the field, and that the side that does get there will also be coached at a lower standard, and less astutely prepared than either Australia or NZ.
Boks were lucky to win the series but that luck will run out in the 3 Nations. Aus 1st , NZ 2nd and the Boks to limp in 3rd.
Justin said | July 7th 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
GS – you seem to be complaining about “politics” and “fairness” and that SA is the victim. Care to elaborate?
Hemjay said | July 7th 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Pothale
So you Northern Hemisphere pundits can use all the excuses you like but as soon as I tell you exactly how it is and to use your words highlight that certain players would certainly be in the team had it not been for injury it’s called bleating.
Funny that!
Knives Out said | July 7th 2009 @ 11:28pm | Report comment
I think you should re-read what I’ve said, Hemjay, and then re-read your posts again. You may find the process helpful and informative.
pothale said | July 8th 2009 @ 12:34am | Report comment
Hemmie
I’m not offering excuses for the Lions. I’m arguing that SA shouldn’t offer excuses of a weakened team as per what I said above.
And you’re not telling me how it is, you’re giving us your view of the world through the Hemjay filter. There’s a world of difference.
pothale said | July 8th 2009 @ 12:42am | Report comment
The same as the rest of us are giving our views through our personal filters – if that’s not obvious.