Are the Boks a great team or a good team in a mediocre era?
Roar Rookie By grahamcreid, 11 Sep 2009 grahamcreid is a Roar Rookie
Since 2007, the Springboks have added a Lions Tour victory and an imminent Tri-Nations crown to their Webb Ellis trophy. Yet their team appears to lack the real star quality that has peppered their side down the ages.
Since the professional era, which teams have emerged who could stamp themselves up alongside the 1974 Lions or the All Black Invincibles of the 1920s?
Possibly Gary Teichmann’s ‘Boks, who won 17 tests in a row.
Australia won everything they could at the turn of the millenium, and England’s dominance in the years up to 2003 means that they can also be considered in that league.
The players that played in these teams defined their era: Willie John McBride, Teichmann, John Eales, Martin Johnson – greats in great teams.
And where do the 2009 ‘Boks stand in this?
Victor Matfield and John Smit are two players who stand out, but after that, the team is flawed. Burger is fantastically talented, but blighted by a summer ban. Fourie du Preez can boss a game, but can drift out of the reckoning when under the cosh. Pierre Spies is a man-mountain, who can get a good speed up, but does he possess any real ball skill?
When people look back at this team, they will struggle to remember why they really did so well.
They were exposed by a British and Irish Lions side, who ran them ragged and could have won with a change of wind.
Australia, just last week, had the better of them, with a team that is regularly beaten and is currently in transition. Even the All Blacks, who should traditionally be peaking about now (mid-RWC) are having a serious look at themselves.
The South Africans can only beat what is in front of them, but to be truly considered great, they must win a truly great struggle.
Now it is time for the mediocre nations to buck up their ideas.
Recommend this story.
September 11th 2009 @ 3:21pm
Temba said | September 11th 2009 @ 3:21pm | Report comment
*YAWN* bring on the game for sat… the roarers are running out of material.
I am with fox, this has been flogged to death, what is it with some of you broken record?
No the Boks and South Africans will never be great, each step up will be met with yet another challenge or bar of something some team has done some time in the last 100 years. Not even the best AB’s team in history has done everything that ever good team in the history has done. The AB’s of the present are not great either and they don’t look like hitting that any time soon. Bless the Aussies for going over board with the Brisbane win but their team is even further away from it.
I hope the Boks win the 3N and stay number one, this way at least we can be the best because you lot will never hang the “great” tag on them. So we will just keep the “best” tag away from you. You cant hit “great” if you don’t pass “best”
So S14, RWC, 3N (hopefully) and the lions for anther 12 years. Come and get it lads.
I am certainly tired of hearing about who, what, when and why the greatest is not as great as the AB’s or the Walabs….
Bring on the beer and rugby, its weekend.
September 11th 2009 @ 4:09pm
ohtani's jacket said | September 11th 2009 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
I don’t see how any side can be the best in the world when the season is far from over. Personally, I don’t think any of the Tri-Nation sides are great, but SA are only fractionally ahead of NZ in the IRB rankings. It would make more sense to take into account the year-end No.1.
Realistically, the rankings are the only objective criteria for determing who the best team is. They’re not flawless, since NZ may claim the No.1 spot without winning the Tri-Nations, but if the Boks lose in Hamilton and claim the TNs with a bonus point, I doubt they can make much a claim to greatness anyway.
Anyway, it’s not that boring a topic. Surely debating greatness is one of the “great” past times of sports fans everywhere.
September 11th 2009 @ 6:05pm
grahamcreid said | September 11th 2009 @ 6:05pm | Report comment
If you look at even five or six years ago, teams that were going head-to-head had fantastic players all over the park. Around 2000 you could look at most positions on the pitch and find truly fantastic players there. Remember Stadium Australia 2000 anyone?
Sheek: You mention the 2001 Lions were the third best B&I side to tour? Don’t think a losing side can really been seen as great, even if it was against a quality Aussie team.
Some people have said you can just go on results – but I honestly don’t think the results are the main thing in truly defining greatness. It is how the team carries itself and fronts up when under pressure. The Boks have had some iffy decision making on both fronts.
Great point about the winning away from home JamesB. When you go and win away against fantastic opposition, then you can go some way to acheiving some greatness (13 men England v ABs).
Being a Pom, I have to admit I wasn’t expecting much from B&I this summer, all the news was how these SA monsters would annihilate our pathetic, boring NH players. I still don’t think NH has much to offer in terms of pure quality at the moment, but they weren’t outclassed by the Boks.
The Boks are a on a bit of a hiding-to-nothing though, because they can only keep beating under-par teams, or they can slip up like last week. No win situation!
September 11th 2009 @ 6:53pm
sheek said | September 11th 2009 @ 6:53pm | Report comment
Graham,
Yeah, I do. Win-loss records aren’t always the definitive thing, you know.
The German soldier was generally considered the best in WW2, but they were let down by a moronic leadership. Thank goodness say we all!
I think if Ian McGeechan had been in charge, the Lions would have triumphed in 2001.
This is not a slur on Graham Henry, not at all. But I do believe there was a cultural problem between him & many of the Lions. Communication wasn’t quite what it should have been. McGeechan would have been able to speak to the Lions “in their own language”.
Yeah, I know it’s English language we talking about, but I think the Lions simply weren’t on Henry’s wavelength sometimes. What motivates Kiwis might be slightly different to what motivates British & Irishmen. Or Aussies, as Robbie Deans has had to discover.
But good things come from bad. For the English contingent of the Lions, that tour loss in 2001 made them all the stronger to win the WC in 2003. Conversely, the Wallas loss to the Lions in 1989, helped them win the WC in 1991.
I remember the Lions of 2001 as an awesome combination of power, speed & skill. They just lacked the ‘killer instinct’ at that time. The Wallas were vastly experienced, superbly led by Eales & MacQueen, & scrambled, & scrambled, & scrambled, & scrambled their way to victory.
September 11th 2009 @ 10:13pm
grahamcreid said | September 11th 2009 @ 10:13pm | Report comment
One look at this year’s Lions make it obvious how getting the ‘ethos’ right is the most important thing. Geech is the heart of what the Lions means. Anyone who watches the ’97 Living with Lions can see that they’re still touring as amateurs, which makes it such a good thing.
I’m not 100% sure, but I don’t think the players did half as much community work in ’01 or ’05 either? They were forever out and about in SA promoting the game, and the ethos of the game.
One pass intercepted in ’01 and the whole series changed – on what small actions large prices lie! Made for great viewing though. Should be pointed out how massively Richard Hill was missed, what a player he was.
September 11th 2009 @ 7:04pm
sheek said | September 11th 2009 @ 7:04pm | Report comment
Graham,
Yeah I do, win-loss records aren’t always definitive, you know.
The German soldier was generally regarded as the finest in WW2, but were led by a moronic leadership. Thank goodness so say us!
I think if Ian McGeechan had been coach, the result would have been different.
This is not a slur on Graham Henry, not at all. But I think there was a cultural difference between Henry & the Lions players, & his message was sometimes lost in “translation”. As Robbie Deans is finding with the present Wallabies.
The 2001 Lions were an awesome team of power, speed & skill. But they hadn’t learnt to “finish off” their opponents. The Wallas by comparison were vastly experienced, & superbly led. They scrambled themselves out of one tight spot after another.
Experience can be priceless, as the current Boks are demonstrating. The loss of 2001 ‘tempered the steel’ of the English contingent, & helped significantly in them winning the WC of 2003.
I do think the 2001 Lions were exceptional, much better than either the winning Lions of 1989 or 1997. Definitely 3rd behind 71 & 74, or 74 & 71, whatever!
September 11th 2009 @ 7:06pm
sheek said | September 11th 2009 @ 7:06pm | Report comment
Sorry about the double reply. I thought the first reply had disappeared into the ether!
September 11th 2009 @ 10:59pm
Knives Out said | September 11th 2009 @ 10:59pm | Report comment
I think that if McGeechan hadn’t coached the 2009 squad the result would have been different, sheek.
September 12th 2009 @ 4:01am
Eagle said | September 12th 2009 @ 4:01am | Report comment
I do not believe the result would’ve been different, but there was a distinct impression of uncertainty in the Lions selections.
September 12th 2009 @ 5:18am
pothale said | September 12th 2009 @ 5:18am | Report comment
Such as?
September 12th 2009 @ 5:21am
Knives Out said | September 12th 2009 @ 5:21am | Report comment
Such as a lot of SA players not being as good as their Lions opponents,
September 12th 2009 @ 7:14am
Eagle said | September 12th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
McGeechan uncertain at lock and in the backrow and never sure at the wing.
September 12th 2009 @ 10:53pm
sheek said | September 12th 2009 @ 10:53pm | Report comment
Yeah,
I actually agree with you – by 2009 Ian McGeenchan was off the pace. It happens to the best of us!
September 13th 2009 @ 8:32am
Knives Out said | September 13th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Even Graham Henry and co?
September 11th 2009 @ 6:18pm
Katipo said | September 11th 2009 @ 6:18pm | Report comment
Hey graham,
I think you underestimate the individual springbok players. Habana is having a great 3N in my opinion. He just gets better and better. Matfield, Botha,best locks in the world & their half back is the best in the world at the moment to. They have a genuine 10 (Steyn) and now a real openside flanker Brussouw. Spies is a superman. It’s a pretty good team. If they go on to win 07 and 11 world cups back-to-back they will go down in history as the greatest team of this time… We will know in about 2 years and 1 months time. Until then, it’s all friendly banter and anticipation I guess…
September 11th 2009 @ 6:20pm
grahamcreid said | September 11th 2009 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
Good shout! Is it too early to start debating the winners of that one….? haha
Not so sure about Spies. Anyone that big and fast is sure to get over the gain line, but give me Z Brooke’s skills and Dallaglio’s breakdown destruction any day. Brussouw is fast becoming a favourite, I think he is definitely the one that should be talked about ahead of Spies.
I’m surprised Steyn hasn’t been starting for months. Pienaar looks flaky to me, while Steyn has a calming influence on the game, giving an opportunity for the backs outside to get some movement going.
September 11th 2009 @ 10:41pm
grahamcreid said | September 11th 2009 @ 10:41pm | Report comment
A comment just made to me:
“South Africa are the Lleyton Hewitt of rugby”.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Step up Roger Federer!
September 11th 2009 @ 11:53pm
Ben J said | September 11th 2009 @ 11:53pm | Report comment
Well if you are implying that the All Blacks are Federer then it is a bad comparison because Federer are much better ar finals;)
September 11th 2009 @ 11:42pm
Ben J said | September 11th 2009 @ 11:42pm | Report comment
Good or great, couldn’t care less but this weekend in Hamilton it is going to be old school and ugly. Can’t wait.
September 12th 2009 @ 1:07am
mactheblack said | September 12th 2009 @ 1:07am | Report comment
hey mam can’t believe we’re still onto this greatness debate thing; when that angle has pretty much been exhausted and flogged to death. it’s a bit over the top to suggest bok opposition is mediocre, but all present day trinations teams not up there with thhe best. let me suggest that of all the sides; the wallabies of they keep their heads have makings of great side into the future; we all can see what they are aiming for. I am an all black fan; but must admit can’ see them scoring four tries against the boks, though i’d like to see it happening. but it’ll be one helluva scrap. c’mon guys it’s hard not to wager on the boks lifting title … tacically they’ve been just ahead of it; except for last week. great things don’t happen to great teams overnite. we know how many caps the boks have chalked up in the current side. the problem is loyalty to the country is not what it was once before, players lured by better opportunities especially in britain and that upsets momentum in building up a great team. carter played in france, look what happened, mcallister came back after a stint overseas, chris jack is in sa; jerry collins where is he?
September 12th 2009 @ 7:10am
Eagle said | September 12th 2009 @ 7:10am | Report comment
you’ve got it mac. now the boks are seeing the last game from De Villiers until 2011. that is as bad for us as the All Blacks without Carter. This is the greatest thing that rugby needs to succeed. Rather than all this agonising about rule changes lets get some pressure for an IRB ruling that all national players must be released by the clubs when tests are played. Then nations must pick players at overseas clubs. We are way behind football (soccer).
September 13th 2009 @ 8:44am
MM said | September 13th 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Sounds like a pretty desperate remark….
September 12th 2009 @ 7:11am
Eagle said | September 12th 2009 @ 7:11am | Report comment
Oh yes, and Chris Jack is on his way back over to you. Today will be his last game for Western Province.