Springboks have the pedigree, do they have the squad?

No Ben, that's not correct. You have run the claim several times on recent threads and several others have openly disagreed with you - actually only two south africans that I can think of. In each case, you have spun the argument out to the nth degree. Different people in each case, but the common element is you. I know you're not from NZ, which is fine either way. Where I and several others disagree with you is in your claims that "SA had an easy run against poor sides", that the RWC win was "no indication of anything beyond the result of a single game", "SA played a collection of one-dimensional and generally poor teams" and similar outlandish claims. SA in 2007 played the best the world had to offer at that time and deserve the acclaim they get, like every other RWC winner.

Actually, Mike, only you and the usual South African firm have disagreed with me. Since 2007 the point has been raised multiple times that that SA side was not a champion side. Btw, I'm not from NZ and I make a simple point - SA had the easiest run to the 2007 WC final in WC history. They weren't a good side in 2006, and they weren't a good side in 2008. I didn't say they weren't worthy winners, as you well know, simply that they played poor sides. Hardly controversial. How you have spun it out for this long I have no idea...

"Of course you agree with Mike, you’re stunningly jealous of NZ rugby, and you clearly can’t accept the fact that not once encountering a top 5 ranked side undermines the winning of the 2007 WC." Naturally, because it doesn't! South Africa fought their way to the top and were worthy winners. Their opponents didn't include NZ or Australia because those teams were not capable of getting through the quarter-finals at that time. "Firstly, there has been endless discussion on the Roar since 2007..." In particular, there has been discussion very recently on a nuimber of threads and every time you have raised this point, most have disagreed with you. The charge that you level at others (being "stunningly jealous" of NZ Rugby) is just a mirror of yourself - you can't cope with the fact that NZ couldn't make it through the finals at that particular competition, and therefore you want to denigrate the South African achievement. I am no particular defender of the Boks, but I am not going to agree with obviously incorrect attempts to deny what they plainly achieved.

Firstly, there has been endless discussion on the Roar since 2007 as to why a) the 2007 WC was one of the worst in history, and b) why SA weren't a 'great' team in the same manner as England in 2003. Of course you agree with Mike, you're stunningly jealous of NZ rugby, and you clearly can't accept the fact that not once encountering a top 5 ranked side undermines the winning of the 2007 WC. Not many people were surprised that SA won, and that's because they had a comfortable draw. Hence they were 3rd favourites in the build-up tournament. That status certainly wasn't founded on their 2006 form, something you conveniently ignore - hence in August 2007 they were ranked 4th in the world. Btw, know your history - SA were ranked 3rd, pre-WC (September), and not 2nd.

"They won the WC, well done – but nothing much to shout home about" I think 100% of the planet will disagree. If winning a World Cup is nothing to shout home about, then why do any countries even bother competing ? I will agree with Mike here - SA were the best at the tournament, I dont know why anyone would find it surprising that the country who went into the WC ranked 2 - right behind NZ, would be a surprise winner.

Your reasoning is incorrect at several points. Firstly, winning the RWC is not "a one off game" as you assert, but the culmination of a campaign of 7 matches, and the last 3 matches are against teams that are in best form at that particular time. Secondly, the 3N is not "a better indicator of a team's quality" because you only play two other teams. The act of playing each other on a regular basis keeps the IRB rankings artificially high, but that is all. You then again assert (against all logic) that each knock-out game in the RWC is a "one off match" which it clearly is not. And all this is designed to bolster your illogical conclusion that SA's triumph at the 2007 RWC is virtually meaningless. The opposite is true - RWC is a true test of a team's mettle and SA in 2007 played a series of teams that were in good form. That did not include NZ or Aus because unfortunately they did not prove capable of making it through the quarter finals.

We can't say that England were a 'better side' simply because they scraped past Australia. For the final time, winning a one off game at a neutral venue is no indication of anything at all beyond a single victory. The 3N is a greater indicator of a team's quality simply because you play the best teams regularly, and only somebody seeking to make a simplistic point with no substance would draw conclusions from single knock-out games. SA played a collection of one-dimensional and generally poor teams. That's that. They won the WC, well done - but nothing much to shout home about.

"You keep repeating this as if the absence of Australia and NZ somehow improves the quality of Argentina, France and England." No, that has never been my point. Rather, I am saying that Argentina, France and England were the better sides in a tournament of that nature at that time, IRB rankings notwithstanding. When the top 3 nations play each other on a regular basis (in 3N), that will almost guarantee that they stay the top 3, regardless of how they actually compare with other teams. And in any case, those ratings do not determine how a team goes at the RWC.

And here we go again... I do watch the Currie Cup. However, the Currie Cup is not a professional tournament, so why would anybody even begin to suggest that it is an illustration of South African rugby excellence? So, the assertion that the SA scrum is erratic, their breakdown work erratic, their defence porous, their backline play bereft of invention, and their leading players out of form is mindless?

Oh FFS... The 2006 3N SA pack didn't contain du Randt, Smit, Van der Linde, Rossouw, Matfield, Smith, Spies and Muller? Good grief... I have no idea where you get these delusions of grandeur from, but you should have grown up an All Black fan, then you might have some substance to match this typical arrogance.

'They played the best available, which at that time and in those circumstances did not include NZ or Aus.' Really bored with this, so only going to respond to one point of typical guff. You keep repeating this as if the absence of Australia and NZ somehow improves the quality of Argentina, France and England. It doesn't. SA played weak sides. The only people who seem to be unsure of this scenario are the usual lunatic fringe from the Republic, and one or two others...

I don't think anything I have written could be characterised as "poor bokke", so I don't know where you get that from. Quite the opposite. My observation is simply that SA were worthy winners in 2007 because they faced the best sides avaialble in that competition and at that time.

Not hilarious, just fact. My comments are based on watching the tournament.

"It’s palpably obvious that Argentina weren’t the 3rd best side in the world simply because they came 3rd in the 2007 WC, and that’s that. Likewise England weren’t the 2nd best side in the world either." They were the 3rd and 2nd best at the RWC and that's what counts. "Conversely, the 3N is an obvious indicator of quality because the best sides play each other home and away." Of course its an indicator of quality, as are lots of competitions. "Simply winning a one-off game at a neutral venue (which is not always neutral) is no indication of anything beyond the result of a single game" Indeed. The same applies to 3N "Flawed as the IRB rankings are the best sides tend to linger at the top for a reason." No-one has suggested otherwise. "SA won a WC, good for them, but they had an easy ride against poor sides. There’s no debate on the matter." There is indeed debate about the matter. They didn't have "an easy ride against poor sides". They played the best available, which at that time and in those circumstances did not include NZ or Aus.

Don't call me dear...

Fair enough. I find it strange that you think SA's pack would not have rolled Aus in that WC. SA were average internationally leading up to it, but using the Super14 as you have previously as a yardstick - i would say that SA had a very good chance of taking that WC regardless of who they met. 27 Aug 2011 Australia 25 - 20 New Zealand 20 Aug 2011 South Africa 18 - 5 New Zealand 30 Oct 2010 Australia 26 - 24 New Zealand 12 Sep 2009 New Zealand 29 - 32 South Africa 01 Aug 2009 South Africa 31 - 19 New Zealand 25 Jul 2009 South Africa 28 - 19 New Zealand 13 Jun 2009 New Zealand 22 - 27 France 26 Jul 2008 Australia 34 - 19 New Zealand 12 Jul 2008 New Zealand 28 - 30 South Africa 06 Oct 2007 France 20 - 18 New Zealand 30 Jun 2007 Australia 20 - 15 New Zealand 02 Sep 2006 South Africa 21 - 20 New Zealand 06 Aug 2005 South Africa 22 - 16 New Zealand 14 Aug 2004 South Africa 40 - 26 New Zealand 07 Aug 2004 Australia 23 - 18 New Zealand 15 Nov 2003 Australia 22 - 10 New Zealand Since the End of 2003 - NZ have lost 16x To SA - 8x To Aus - 6x to Fra - 2x "but had they met then you might want to actually do some research and bother perusing the scores between the sides from that period. " 6 Jun 2007 South Africa 22 - 19 Australia 07 Jul 2007 Australia 25 - 17 South Africa Id say it was quite even leading into the WC ? However, what happened in S14 that year ? 1 Sharks 13 10 0 3 355 214 141 5 45 2 Bulls 13 9 0 4 388 223 165 6 42 3 Crusaders 13 8 0 5 382 235 147 10 42 4 Blues 13 9 0 4 355 235 120 6 42 5 Brumbies 13 9 0 4 234 173 61 4 40 6 Chiefs 13 7 1 5 373 321 52 10 40 7 Western Force 13 6 1 6 276 292 −16 6 32 8 Hurricanes 13 6 0 7 247 300 −53 3 27 9 Highlanders 13 5 0 8 235 301 −66 7 27 10 Stormers 13 6 0 7 249 326 −77 3 27 11 Cheetahs 13 4 1 8 265 342 −77 4 22 12 Lions 13 5 0 8 175 284 −109 2 22 13 Waratahs 13 3 1 9 266 317 −51 7 21 14 Reds 13 2 0 11 201 438 −237 3 11 Australia placed 5th, 7th, 13th and 14th Once again i would like to say - Australia would have lost to SA in that World Cup. Only NZ could have dethroned the Boks, had they met.

'Could the Boks not have beaten up that weak Tight 5 of Australia ? Since ‘crap’ England were able to.' England were crap, but they had a good tight five -something that Australia lacked. The only aspect of tight play SA were superior at was in the lineout. In any case, SA didn't meet Australia, but had they met then you might want to actually do some research and bother perusing the scores between the sides from that period. You're oversimplifying matters. Australia would have probably beaten that England side 99 times out of 100. As an England fan I'm not hanging my hat on it, which is what you seem to be doing with the WC. So had Aus scraped a win against England – Would they have beaten the Boks ? 'If the Boks had beaten Australia in that WC – would that have made the difference in your mind that they deserved the cup and were the best team' Lose the NZ chip, it's tres boring. SA didn't face a side that was then ranked in the top 5 of the world rankings. Had they beaten sides ranked in the top five then obviously my argument would be redundant, but they didn't, and my argument isn't redundant.

Could the Boks not have beaten up that weak Tight 5 of Australia ? Since 'crap' England were able to. So had Aus scraped a win against England - Would they have beaten the Boks ? If the Boks had beaten Australia in that WC - would that have made the difference in your mind that they deserved the cup and were the best team, or can you only be considered a worthy winner, when you have beaten NZ along the way ?

Ivan... Firstly, I haven't said anywhere on this article that Wales will beat South Africa, so stop putting words into my mouth, and again... please stop being so childish. It's getting ridiculous. England were crap in 2007, and at least I have the intelligence, as an England fan and a rugby fan, to accept that. Just because France beat NZ doesn't make them a great scalp for England. England overachieved by beating Australia, but they were still crap. Beating up a weak Australian tight five doesn't change that, and it's totally disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Which is exactly why I think SA will knock NZ out.