1. Did I not write above “I do not dispute that South Africa were deserving winners of RWC07″? Most of you seem not to have noticed this.

2. Just because I try to apply hard-nosed logic to the results of the Boks, why would I not do the same to Australia and NZ? You seem to assume that because I am critical of the Boks, that means I am of the mind that the Wallabies and/or the ABs are wonderful and beyond question. That is not the case, far from it.

Here are some more facts to add to those of Knives Out:

1. After winning the 2004 3N on bonus points (i.e., each team finished with a 2/2 record), South Africa came 2nd in the 3N of 2005 and 3rd (let me not be impolite and say last) in the 3N of 2006-8.

2. The only time in recent years that South Africa has been no. 1 in the IRB’s rankings is briefly after the 2007 RWC. At all other times NZ has been no. 1; for not insignificant periods of time, Australia has been ranked ahead of the ‘Boks.

3. NZ won 3-0 against a 2005 Lions side that was at least as strong on paper as the 2009 Lions side. The first two wins were highly emphatic, while the third was also comfortable and was achieved by a NZ side with a lot of second-string players, much like the Bok side from Jo’burg a few weeks ago (which was smashed). Further, most people would say that South Africa is at least as difficult a place to tour as NZ.

If out of all this and the facts presented by Knives Out you honestly think it is justified to conclude that the Boks have been the dominant and the indisputably superior team in international rugby, well could you please just admit that you are arguing on passion and emotion but not on reason.

Incidentally, I admire your passion for the Boks (and I mean this most sincerely).

I also want to state that I am not at all “bitter” about any of the successes of South African rugby. I was truly thrilled by the way the Bulls won the S14 this year. I have the highest admiration for South Africa’s marquee players (Matfield, du Preez, Habana), and I would pay good money to watch the athleticism of Spies and the skills of Kankowski. As I wrote above, ” I’ve even come to have some admiration for Bakkies Botha” (and even more admiration for Graeme Smith, if you want to extend the net).

I could go on, but hopefully you get my point. It’s good to have emotion but there is also a big place for reason, and it is almost always on this plane that I try to write. Similarly for Knives Out. Engage us on our facts and reasons, and leave the emotional responses for those who write at that level.

2. That England team did not destroy Australia.

3. By utilising your logic I can conclude that given that NZ and Australia had beaten SA regularly for years prior to the 07 WC the trend would have continued. Further, Ireland had beaten SA the past two times the teams had met so I presume that Ireland would have beaten SA as well.

4. I would think that quite a lot of rugby fans would think SA rather fortunate to have beaten the Lions actually.

–

‘I will say that the fallacy of trying to diminish SA’s WC victory via demeaning their opponents (presumably based on an historical basis) ultimately ends up doing the reverse’

What does this mean, van der Merwe?

So yes, South Africa were worthy winners of RWC2007.

In World Cup, even the lesser sides are dangerous – they can spring an upset on the best team in the world if it is unwary or careless, which is what happened to both ABs and Wallabies. A world cup winner is the ONE team that doesn’t drop a match from the quarter finals to the final. The Bokke did that in 2007 and deserve the kudos.

Of course, that doesn’t guarantee that you will even get past the quarter finals in RWC2011 – Pas Op!

‘the mark of a championship team”
Please consider the tiny single moments that have awarded disproportionate lifetime glory to a long list of sportman and teams (including the AB’s and Wallabies) more generally. I agree South Africa ride a bit of post RWC 2007 hype but a fan would look more broadly at history going back over 100 years to form a proper opinion. Anyone looking at South African rugby in this perspective would be a fool to NOT give the Springboks a seat at the highest level of rugby. Some Bok fans would argue that South African rugby enjoys a ‘undervalued’ and ‘underhyped’ status in terms of world rugby if viewed in totality.

Coming back to the ‘hype’ and disproportionate glory – New Zealand AND Australia are very quick to trumpet their tiniest success.

I’d cut South Africa a little slack generally … to me, in a video analogy, they’re like the 80′s VHS vs Betamax situation – VHS was more popular but Betamax was the real deal and infinitely better quality. Stolen honor ? Who said this was a fair world ?

Notice I wrote “I agree you can only beat what is put in front of you”, so I do not dispute that South Africa were deserving winners of RWC07. However this of itself is not to say that they are a great team or that they are the best team in the world. To give a recent example from a different sport, Pakistan beat your South African boys in the semi-finals of the T20 cricket WC, but in my mind there is no doubt that South Africa is a better cricket team.

Anyway, I come from the country which won a gold medal at the 2002 Winter Olympics because 3 out of 4 skaters fell over, and so the Australian who was coming last had to do nothing more than complete the race … we were all happy to claim that gold and rejoice over it, but no-one in their right mind would ever say that this result meant that Stephen Bradbury was the best skater in the world. I am not saying that the Boks in 2007 were Stephen Bradbury, but I’m just using this example to make a point.

Dont enjoy the paying out Mr Russell but you make some valid points and I agree that they are too inconsistent to be defined as a great team in their era. Good yes, with some excellent players but not able to deliver week to week a full 80 min which would be the mark of a championship team. As for the world cup, its a four year badge won 2 years ago by the best team in that comp format. Hell, I remember being in a train in Paris after we blanked the English in the pool stages and they were still singing “we are still world champions”! so we will probably be the same. Things have certainly changed since then and the past is the past but dont belittle an achievment any rugby nation would love to accomplish just because all the other top seeds failed to get over the line against “inferior” opponents.
Anyway, thats been done to death, on to the Lions. I was obviously happy that for all the obvious short comings in the current squad and a coach out of a comic book we sealed the series while only really playing well for 60 min or so. I am also dissapointed that the we never again looked that good and if anything got progressively worse while the Lions got better. Unlike my brethren I was pretty nervous about winning the whole thing from the start, prone as we are to said scratchy performances and obvious deficiencies in selection and setpiece. The Lions were for a scratch side only prepared for 6 weeks quite impressive and once the initial selections sorted got better and better. A great series I think which I am glad we won. What remains to be seen though, is if the coaches actually learnt anything from it and correct the glaring chinks and if the players can get up for the comp. I hope so as for the core group this could be the final hurrah and it would be great to sign off as holders of the RWC, Lions series and 3N.

As for the 3N, I think it will be very even across the board but that Australia are looking like the team with the least deficiencies. Current lineup is solid with no obvious flaws and were pretty slick but again we shall see how things unfold against the ABs and Boks which is the beauty of this comp. Any team can win on a given day

I agree with everything you said but none of it is popular sentiment, so type it gently and hope that nobody reads it.

Seriously, I’m getting a bit tired of all this talk about how great the Springboks potentially are. They had their chance to lay a claim to greatness against the Lions, and they blew it – two narrow wins (one of them highly controversial) and a narrow loss against a Lions team with no pretensions to greatness … sorry, but that doesn’t do it for me. If the Bulls being able to score 50 points against teams that have been in South Africa for 5 days makes the Springboks a great team … well let’s just say that there must be a lot of great teams in international rugby. How quickly we forget that South Africa won the last World Cup without having to play Australia or New Zealand or France or Ireland or Wales. I agree you can only beat what is put in front of you – Fiji (just!), Argentina and a clapped-out, headless England: what awesome opposition! – but just because you do so, that doesn’t automatically make you a great team.

What seems clear to me is that all three 3N teams are relatively even, and so it’s going to come down to weather, bounces of the ball, form minutiae, and – dare I say it – refereeing calls. I for one am not going to try to predict all this, because one can’t. I mean, look at the Lions tests: either Vickery took some amazing drugs between tests 1 or 3 or else one has to conclude that his monstering by The Best in T1 was purely a result of lax refereeing. No-one can have any idea how this sort of thing will go in the 3N.

South Africa at their best (e.g. big wins over Australia and England last year) are indeed an awesome proposition, but they have been up and down for so many years that one simply has to accept that this unevenness is part of their DNA.

I’m wondering who brought up Paul O’Connell, although, incidentally, I didn’t notice Matfield overwhelming the Munster man at any point. This sort of comment is very school yard playground-esque and given that O’Connell is not participating in the 3N also somewhat irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Botha and Matfield were rather insipid during the Lions series and it should be a genuine worry for South African fans that such an experience pair could be subdued by such an inexperienced collective. As I’ve said, I’m sure Deans and Henry watched the Lions series with great interest.
–

I completely disagree, Sam. The Springbok depth myth has been completely blown out of the water. I think Australia has the best draw with their three mid-tournament games at home.

Who said they were?

I think you should ask that question the other way round. Do you still think that Paul and the rest of the Lions are third-rate and can’t hold a candle to the Boks? That’s what most commentators were saying prior to the test series. Matfield and Botha are continually paraded as the best lock pairing in the world – in NH and SH press.

I’m wondering how rather than why, actually. By the way, do you still cling to the delusion that Matfield and Botha are third-rate and unable to hold a candle to Paul and the rest?

Add in that Habana seems more interested in prancing around like Cristiano Ronaldo, they lack centres to get the ball out to him anyway, their scrum is average etc etc. I’m looking forward to a few servings of humble pie being dished out to Safferland.

The Lions were poorly organised and terribly selected, hence the form and composition of the midweek side, and the tactical naivety that was illustrated in the 1st test. The Lions were simply better than a lot of SH ‘experts’ thought they could be, and unfortunately for European rugby they could have been a lot better. Therefore will the series win galvanise the Springboks? I severely doubt it. The Lions were arrogantly dismissed as cannon fodder, thus the average Springbok fan must be wondering why the Lions weren’t dispatched with consumate ease, as was the pre-tour predictions. Further, were I a Springbok fan I’d be wondering why players who were considered greats prior to the series: Mtawariara, Botha, Matfield, Spies, du Preez, JdV and Habana were made to look so ordinary and containable by what was essentially an elongated Barbarians squad. If the Lions struggled with being in camp for 8 weeks will the Wallabies struggle with even more time together?

The Springbok scrum was poor and I would imagine that an improving Wallaby pack will be licking their lips in anticpation at facing their African brethren, especially after the beating that the Waratahs dished out to the Sharks. It’s all too easy to say that the Springboks weren’t at their best but if that is true then it is fair to say that they weren’t at their best during their European tour, the 08 3N or at any point beyond that aside from the 07 WC. SA will be ferocious but the Lions have set a clear precedent on how to beat SA and SA have always been ferocious. That simply isn’t enough anymore. I am picking SA to collect yet another wooden spoon.