Boks and All Blacks hunting for Grand Slams

Having lived in both, Ireland and UK are quite different. The standard of living in the ROI is better than that in the UK. Less, pollution, less people, far less proles and oiks and essentially one big middle/upper middle class. A much more educated class of people who don't take themselves as seriously either. The UK are a bit touchy seeing as the ROI has over taken them in the standard of living stakes. But that's okay. The Irish being better than them in what is their 4th sport from a population of 4.1 million must be gauling too. So show some sensitivity Pothale.

probably in the same manner as every tour that has started with us losing to Ireland, stumble on and then wallop England for a feel good glow

vc I agree 100%, i am a huge bok supporter and at the moment i do believe the boks are the best team in the world but i feel it will be to much for the boks to achive a grandslam...

Times change, VC. Things all used to be very simple 100 years ago as well. They started out as the British Isles Rugby Union Team team which at least was accurate at the time. When they changed it to British Lions around 1950, it wasn't. When they changed it again in 2000, it became accurate again. If Stephen Ferris was only too happy to play as a British Lion - more power to his elbow. It's the ones who wouldn't be happy that you have to allow for. I refer to the 'UK teams' above because I'm responding to the writer who made the distinction between the Ireland team and UK teams. He asserted that Ireland might beat the Boks due to their 80 minute intensity of play, and asked the question as to what UK team is equipped to be playing at the same level of intensity. I wasn't making any correction in my response. I used his terminology. In the poster's mind he's defining the UK rugby teams as England, Wales and Scotland, which in rugby terminology is a fair collective description, since there isn't a separate rugby union or test team in Northern Ireland. It's part of the Ireland team - which is separate. Saying bits of it are in the UK only confuses matters if you want to make a distinction between the teams. So UK teams or Great Britain teams, if you prefer, are England, Wales and Scotland. No doubt, if I used the term British teams, then you'd have you and others saying that British players play for Ireland, so Ireland is a British team as well. And so on, ad nauseum. Anyway - enough on this.

I'm touchy? That's rather amusing coming from the fellow who makes a point of correcting every Australian who mistakenly includes all of Ireland in the UK. You hand out corrections often but not always accurately. Above, for instance, you refer to the "UK teams" when it would make far more sense to say the "British teams" if (as I assume) you mean not to include Ireland. You often seem wilfully to ignore the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. As for the Lions, you should know that it all used to be very simple. They were the British Lions. It is only the recent influx of southern Irish into the squad - and consequent agitation for a name change - that has has necessitated a change of terminology. The likes of Willie John McBride (and dare I say Stephen Ferris?) were only too happy to play as British Lions.

Oh come, come, VC. They're called the British and Irish Lions who come from Britain and Ireland. It's two countries, but four different unions is the point in the context of the Lions coming together for a match. I don't think our Australian cousins appreciate these kind of minor quibble distinctions at this distance - as you once rebuked me previously. You always seem quite touchy on this subject for some reason. Chill out.

"The Lions are made up of two countries – Britain and Ireland – but also four different unions" Not quite. More like two countries - the UK and the Republic of Ireland - and four unions.

But if Ireland do win the opening match against the Boks - and it will be a torcher since it's also the opening match for the redeveloped Lansdowne Road and Irish pride will be at stake - then the matches against the UK teams will be a little bit flatter. How will the Boks fare in those circumstances?

The Lions are made up of two countries - Britain and Ireland - but also four different unions. Getting them to gel together in a short space of time, when they are drawn from four different test sides and approx 8 different clubs is going to put them at a disadvantage compared to the Boks or other opposing country who have an established test side. In part, that's why Geech went for existing combinations whenever he could either at club or country level. Regarding each individual forward pack, there's other contributors who can talk more expertly on that topic. But I wouldn't assume that a dominant Bok pack will guarantee them victory. It didn't against Ireland.

Rusty I am old enough to remember that in the buildup to every World Cup since 99, there are stories about the collapse of the Boks with the coming defections after the World Cup. Yes, there will be defections.... there always are. But there will also be other players coming through. That is the one constant of SA rugby, the unbelievable amount of talent coming through year after year. If they could manage to find some decent coaches, they will be even better off.

For many Home Nations supporters, the Grand Slam that sticks in the memory most is the Wallabies 1984 tour. More so than the 1978 All Blacks Slam. Of course, that's partly because the next attempt was 14 years later, by which time the game had gone professional and seeing SH teams had started to become more commonplace. Nevertheless, Australia won enormous respect for the way they played. It's no criticism of any current SH team to say that it would be difficult to recapture that kind of feeling these days.

Rem, yeah that could be a good point. Synergy. But dont you think that itd surely be better to have 8 players picked from the whole of the UK than just 1 country? Maybe not. That is an interesting point. The way its taken Rocky Elsom some time to gel with his new Brumbies team mates would suggest that even if you are a good player how you link up with your particular team mates is vital to your own efforts. Having said all this, am I right in suggesting you believe that each individual UK nations forward pack has a better chance of matching the SA one?

Rugbywits - I don't feel the fact that the Lions were made up of a couple of countries is an advantage rather a disadvantage. Where as the Boks play together year in and year out, and know each other well, the Lions don't, coming together for only a short period every few years.

I did say above that I didnt think any UK team would be confident that they could be as efficient in turning scoring chances into points than the Boks. But like a few people around here I get a sense that the Boks arent going to keep improving. Theyre on a plateau at the moment and need to find a way to expand their game a little more, be a little more inventive without giving up the pure aggression and bulldozing that makes them hard to handle. I think 1 team will probably stop them getting the grand slam. Most likely to be Ireland but possibly Wales. The Irish have the composure to win, a great level of composure is needed to beat the Boks because of their ability to quietly accumulate points and put on pressure for a full 80. What UK team is best equiped to be playing at the same level in the 80th min? Anyone have ideas on that? I think thats key against the Boks.

I rekon the SA forward pack and the Lions forward pack were fairly similar across the 3 matches.Sometimes the SA pack had a bit more brute force but the Lions were great at grinding away that advantage. The problem with relating this to the grand slam chances of the boks is that the Boks were 1 country. The Lions were a couple. Id say the Boks forwards wont have the same stuggles against each team individually. The Boks back play is about being very efficient usually. They dont waste a whole lot of chances. What Grand Slam team will be as assured at the Boks that they will get points on nearly good opportunity? I dont rekon any of them. If I was to suggest a way for a UK team to beat the boks this year it would be absolutely snot Steyn from the start so he cant kick. That might get you over the line... just.

Lets just say I am a pragmatic Bok supporter. The current team is solid and has done us proud but I would say is starting to look a little jaded in key positions. This could be a combination of age or burnout/indifference but either way it needs to be managed in such a way that we protect the key members while giving the next generation exposure in a condusive e.g. winning environment. Historically outside of the 2007 tri-nations we havent been able to manage that and we are talking essentially about the same batch of players!

Interesting thing - the Boks have won the Grand Slam 5 times, the ABs 4 x and the Wallabies once. Yet you'd think from Aussie rugby coverage, the Wallabies are the only team to have ever done it!!!

Rusty, thats a different opinion on SA? From my Kiwi perspective they look rock solid even though ageing and will be very tough for anyone to beat again this year and next.

Anti up Boers! The English are hijacking your thread! If both NZ and SA do it and we're talking for and against then I'd put my house on NZ winning that one. The ABs are much better at puting away the minor teams by larger amounts. If I was offering odds of a GS then I'd give SA 2.20 NZ 1.60

No chance? What odds are you taking? I might be interested in putting some money on it! :-)