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.

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!

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.

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.

http://www.heavensgame.com/bob-dwyers-rugby-workshops/bob-dwyer-analysis/bob-dwyer-analysis-lions-rampant.html

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.