SF1: South Africa v New Zealand, 24 October

First topic message reminder :

            
SOUTH AFRICA v NEW ZEALAND

24 October 2015
16:00 BST (UTC+01)
Twickenham, London

Live on [TBC]

Ref: Jérôme Garcès (France)
ARs: Romain Poite (Poite) & John Lacey (Ireland)
TMO: George Ayoub (Australia)

A. Head to Head

90 Played 90
35 Won 52
3 Drawn 3
52 Lost 35
1412 Points 1745

B. Recent Form

25 July 2015
Emirates Airline Park, Johannesburg
20 – 27 to New Zealand

4 October 2014
Ellis Park Stadium, Johannesburg
27 – 25 to South Africa

13 September 2014
Westpac Stadium, Wellington
14 – 10 to New Zealand

5 October 2013
Ellis Park Stadium, Johannesburg
27 – 38 to New Zealand

14 September 2013
Eden Park, Auckland
29 – 15 to New Zealand

6 October 2012
FNB Stadium, Johannesburg
16 – 32 to New Zealand

15 September 2012
Forsyth Barr Stadium, Dunedin
21 – 11 to New Zealand

20 August 2011
Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium, Port Elizabeth
18 – 5 to South Africa

30 July 2011
Westpac Stadium, Wellington
40 – 7 to New Zealand

C. TEAMS:

SOUTH AFRICA

01 Tendai Mtawarira
02 Bismarck du Plessis
03 Frans Malherbe
04 Eben Etzebeth
05 Lood de Jager
06 Francois Louw
07 Schalk Burger
08 Duane Vermeulen

09 Fourie du Preez (captain)
10 Handre Pollard
11 Bryan Habana
12 Damian de Allende
13 Jesse Kriel
14 JP Pietersen
15 Willie le Roux

16 Adriaan Strauss
17 Trevor Nyakane
18 Jannie du Plessis
19 Victor Matfield
20 Willem Alberts
21 Ruan Pienaar
22 Pat Lambie
23 Jan Serfontein.

NEW ZEALAND

[TBC]

Yeah calling the most physical side in world rugby powderpuff is extracting the Michael a tad.

If NZ's support play and cleanouts are first rate SA will run into problems as quick phase play from NZ kills everyone. Kaino and Owen Franks are massive here in cleaning guys out for Smith.

chewed_mintie wrote:

Biltong wrote:And the biggest powder puff of them all, Lood de Jager.

He does have puffy cheeks though....ones you could pinch!

Interestingly, I was on the tube after the SA v USA game and on our carriage were a couple of Saffa Ladies, we got talking and it turned out to be none other than Lood's mum and girlfriend.  Very nice ladies, very gracious and obviously proud.  The boy's rise is staggering in my opinion.  I asked his mum if he was going to stay in SA long term....sadly for you Saffa's, it looks like he'll take up a French contract the very minute he gets offered one...make of that what you will.

Well my philosophy hasn't changed, you wanna play for money, go. But then you don't get to play for the Springboks.

I am so sick and tired of seeing talent wasted at home because overseas players are being treated like royalty by our National coach.

I do not want overseas players in our team, not 1.

If a guy leaves, good luck to him, but if you do not play in our domestic competition where you can prove you are better than your compatriots week in and week out, you don't get to play for SA.

SImple as that, no exceptions.

Biltong wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:

Biltong wrote:And the biggest powder puff of them all, Lood de Jager.

He does have puffy cheeks though....ones you could pinch!

Interestingly, I was on the tube after the SA v USA game and on our carriage were a couple of Saffa Ladies, we got talking and it turned out to be none other than Lood's mum and girlfriend.  Very nice ladies, very gracious and obviously proud.  The boy's rise is staggering in my opinion.  I asked his mum if he was going to stay in SA long term....sadly for you Saffa's, it looks like he'll take up a French contract the very minute he gets offered one...make of that what you will.

Well my philosophy hasn't changed, you wanna play for money, go. But then you don't get to play for the Springboks.

I am so sick and tired of seeing talent wasted at home because overseas players are being treated like royalty by our National coach.

I do not want overseas players in our team, not 1.

If a guy leaves, good luck to him, but if you do not play in our domestic competition where you can prove you are better than your compatriots week in and week out, you don't get to play for SA.

SImple as that, no exceptions.

Can you blame them?

Firstly I don't think it hurts SA that much. As long as the players are not impacted for the national team and are available for all training sessions then its fine. My concern is the number of games they play in France and the lack of fitness maintenance in these clubs.

Guys have a short career. In a perfect world players should stay but I think as long as they get some restrictions i.e.

you must have 50 caps then you can go then I think it should be approved.

I think the scrum could decide how this game, and indeed the Sunday semi, goes. The pitches and weather have been great but Scotland showed last week that Oz are vulnerable if you can put their scrum under sufficient pressure.
Likewise this week with Moody likely to start for the AB's they may, I say may, be vulnerable. To be fair i havent seen much of Moody, so I have no idea as to his scrummaging ability. However if he is the third choice loosehead I am assuming he isnt that great a scrummager?
Can anyone enlighten me as to Moody's credentials for this match?
If anyone can put the blackness on their heels it's the Boks and with real attacking flair in the midfield its shaping up to be a cracker of a match.
Also Interesting to see how the AB's go without Joubert on the field as their 16th man! - Joking, only joking.

I fancy SA to pull of an upset here. The ABs were sensational against France but with wet and windy weather on the way and the boks on a good run since the Japan loss I think they will start strong and turn the all blacks over....

rodders wrote:I fancy SA to pull of an upset here. The ABs were sensational against France but with wet and windy weather on the way and the boks on a good run since the Japan loss I think they will start strong and turn the all blacks over....

From your keyboard to God's ears.

I am somewhat confused by some of the comments here regarding NZ’s ability to play in the wet, or the lessening of their chance in the wet.

NZ 43 Aus 6 1996

It was a long time ago but that was near enough the perfect game and the conditions were awful.  NZ will be more comfortable in the wet than SA.  Can’t remember the last time they beat us in the wet…

No New Zealand can play brilliant in the wet - what I meant is that when you get those abrupt change in weather patterns you tend to get a lot of those bugs, flus and norovirus type things going around and the ABs tend to be susceptible to those....

chewed_mintie wrote:I am somewhat confused by some of the comments here regarding NZ’s ability to play in the wet, or the lessening of their chance in the wet.

NZ 43 Aus 6 1996

It was a long time ago but that was near enough the perfect game and the conditions were awful.  NZ will be more comfortable in the wet than SA.  Can’t remember the last time they beat us in the wet…

No one says NZ can't play in the wet. However playing in the wet does not help smooth running rugby. It reduces visibilty, turns 5m gaps into 2m gaps, means dropped balls more likely, causes the kick to be used more and makes boots sink that little bit closer into the soil..

Whether or not NZ can play in the wet is not the point.. they can. But their A game, the one that they can destroy teams (ala last week) is suppressed by poor weather condition. Means that NZ are less likely to run away with it and keep SA in the game for longer.

rodders wrote:No New Zealand can play brilliant in the wet - what I meant is that when you get those abrupt change in weather patterns you tend to get a lot of those bugs, flus and norovirus type things going around and the ABs tend to be susceptible to those....

haha...clutching at straws! if it gives you hope, then you've got to hang your hat on something

chewed_mintie wrote:

rodders wrote:No New Zealand can play brilliant in the wet - what I meant is that when you get those abrupt change in weather patterns you tend to get a lot of those bugs, flus and norovirus type things going around and the ABs tend to be susceptible to those....

haha...clutching at straws! if it gives you hope, then you've got to hang your hat on something

What are the chances those are the excuses if you lose though!!!!

fa0019 wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:I am somewhat confused by some of the comments here regarding NZ’s ability to play in the wet, or the lessening of their chance in the wet.

NZ 43 Aus 6 1996

It was a long time ago but that was near enough the perfect game and the conditions were awful.  NZ will be more comfortable in the wet than SA.  Can’t remember the last time they beat us in the wet…

No one says NZ can't play in the wet. However playing in the wet does not help smooth running rugby. It reduces visibilty, turns 5m gaps into 2m gaps, means dropped balls more likely, causes the kick to be used more and makes boots sink that little bit closer into the soil..

Whether or not NZ can play in the wet is not the point.. they can. But their A game, the one that they can destroy teams (ala last week) is suppressed by poor weather condition. Means that NZ are less likely to run away with it and keep SA in the game for longer.

I get what you are saying but it sounds like, according to other posters here (and in the media), that NZ appear to be one trick ponies or outright flat-track bullies who are only capable of playing if it is dry.  if ever there was a team which has mastered being able to adapt to the conditions/referee/opposition then it is this team.

It could rain and NZ could win by 30, just like we did v SA in Wellington in 2007

chewed_mintie wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:I am somewhat confused by some of the comments here regarding NZ’s ability to play in the wet, or the lessening of their chance in the wet.

NZ 43 Aus 6 1996

It was a long time ago but that was near enough the perfect game and the conditions were awful.  NZ will be more comfortable in the wet than SA.  Can’t remember the last time they beat us in the wet…

No one says NZ can't play in the wet. However playing in the wet does not help smooth running rugby. It reduces visibilty, turns 5m gaps into 2m gaps, means dropped balls more likely, causes the kick to be used more and makes boots sink that little bit closer into the soil..

Whether or not NZ can play in the wet is not the point.. they can. But their A game, the one that they can destroy teams (ala last week) is suppressed by poor weather condition. Means that NZ are less likely to run away with it and keep SA in the game for longer.

I get what you are saying but it sounds like, according to other posters here (and in the media), that NZ appear to be one trick ponies or outright flat-track bullies who are only capable of playing if it is dry.  if ever there was a team which has mastered being able to adapt to the conditions/referee/opposition then it is this team.

It could rain and NZ could win by 30, just like we did v SA in Wellington in 2007

Was that the game when Jake White sent their B side and left literally their top 20 players off the tour to keep them ready for the RWC?

NZ probably have more experience in the wet conditions than SA. However challenging weather does seem to suit SA's preferred style of play more than NZ. To be honest its how each adapts.

I think people may be surprised (if it rains) at the way in which NZ are still able to execute their attacking skills, whilst South Africa are forced into a very limited gameplan by their inability to play expansive rugby in the rain.

Well then, we'll just have to make the best of what we can with our limited skillset, eh? ;

They always have done, don't see it changing tomorrow.

SA predominantly play to their strengths, which is using their massive specimen to smash opposition teams - it works for them for the most part. But to say they don't play expansively is a bit hogwash. They play that way when it's necessary. I've seen the likes of Jacque Fourie, Habana, Le Roux, etc run it from anywhere and score lots of tries. Fourie was one of the best 13's I've ever seen.

I don't know why people are skirting around the issue. We're going to lose. Maybe by a close margin, maybe by a huge one, but like MS Dhoni says, "when you die, you die, there is no better way to die."

The real tragedy is that this is the first semi final and I won't be able to enjoy Argentina Australia through the tears

mikey_dragon wrote:SA predominantly play to their strengths, which is using their massive specimen to smash opposition teams - it works for them for the most part. But to say they don't play expansively is a bit hogwash. They play that way when it's necessary. I've seen the likes of Jacque Fourie, Habana, Le Roux, etc run it from anywhere and score lots of tries. Fourie was one of the best 13's I've ever seen.

Yep. Some of what our backs are capable of

The fact is these two sides there is seldom much between them and home advantage
used to be crucial.Any thing can happen on neutral territory both sides can play a
tight or lose game.
IF its wet then expect the AB`s to play ball in hand and a narrow game which as
you say may favour the Boks
BUT it cuts two ways intercepts are likely to be reduced,rolling mauls/scrums more
difficult.Kicks especially drop goals more difficult metronomic goalkicking more difficult
As with every game luck with discipline and fitness will decide Matfield coming on for the last
20 minutes against a team with no Lock cover could be crucial.
Too close to call but narrow Bok win seems likely as they will be treated as the home team.
Joe Moody for those who don`t know is an outstanding Scrummager on recent form
better than Woodcock.

emack2 wrote:The fact is these two sides there is seldom much between them and home advantage
used to be crucial.Any thing can happen on neutral territory both sides can play a
tight or lose game.
IF its wet then expect the AB`s to play ball in hand and a narrow game which as
you say may favour the Boks
BUT it cuts two ways intercepts are likely to be reduced,rolling mauls/scrums more
difficult.Kicks especially drop goals more difficult metronomic goalkicking more difficult
As with every game luck with discipline and fitness will decide Matfield coming on for the last
20 minutes against a team with no Lock cover could be crucial.
Too close to call but narrow Bok win seems likely as they will be treated as the home team.
Joe Moody for those who don`t know is an outstanding Scrummager on recent form
better than Woodcock.

Hi Allan, ABs to lead by 20 for me with the Boks peeling it back a bit too late. Weather conditions might dampen the margin but I think this side has covered every scenario many times in its preparation.

I think this is about McCaw and destiny. He's a week at most left as an All Black and this team has remained grounded from its learnings of 2007 and 2011, but I think it will never be happy until it wins this and the final the Ab way...by dominating the opposition.

So for me there's only two outcomes...a close win to the Boks if the Boks rise to The occasion, or the ABs winning comprehensively, anything 15+ on the cards.

Time for confidence I say.

Oh the World Cup is still going on?

Clean up after yourselves and make sure to lock the door on the way out...there's people trying to sleep here!

SecretFly wrote:Oh the World Cup is still going on?

Clean up after yourselves and make sure to lock the door on the way out...there's people trying to sleep here!

We always do...we always do.

Crazy, didn't realise Schalk went through this.

"As his coach Heyneke Meyer said this week, Burger's presence in the team should be an inspiration in itself following his near-fatal brush with bacterial meningitis two years ago, an illness which required a six-week stay in hospital.

"My wife phoned family and friends and said, 'Listen, I think he is on his way out'," Burger told the Daily Mail last month. "I didn't open my eyes for five days. I was there but sometimes it felt like I was going to stop fighting and then I would go, I'd be gone. Every heartbeat it felt like someone was putting a knife straight into my head."

The problems started for Burger in early 2013 when he found a lump in his left leg. A scan found a cyst in his back which was depressing his spinal cord. After an operation to drain the cyst, infection set in, which contaminated his spinal fluid.

"This was the scary part," the 32-year-old father-of-two said. "I went in weighing 110kg and things just changed like that. I had my first operation and then I was in dire straits - I knew I was in trouble."

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11534316

Nervous wreck, game on. Ground looks good. Teams look pumped.......

I actually suspect that SA may win this but I really want the AB's to win.

Gotta love Meyer. I'm not sure there's a coach out there who wears more emotion on his sleeve....

NZ are doing their haka while off camera SA are doing a traditional Zulu rain dance.

profitius wrote:NZ are doing their haka while off camera SA are doing a traditional Zulu rain dance.

Some early warning signs for the AB's...

What an awful attempt at a tackle from de Jager.

Was that not a mile forward?

wolfball wrote:Was that not a mile forward?

Looked like it on first viewing!

wolfball wrote:Was that not a mile forward?

Looked like it.

De Jaeger has that 'big kid' look about him still, great ball carrier individually but outside of that he doesn't quite look like a SA forward yet. Awfull attempt there.

Fourie has to be more switched on too, caught twice ball in hand already.

Try aside though SA are looking ok, composed ball in hand and squeezing NZ into penalties

Already there are 3/4 NZ players over the ball illegaly, slowing ball and should be penalised, that one going to NZ..

I think this is where SH sides kill NH teams in general, lets hope NZ aren't able to strngle SA there, and we have a contest

Tackled in the air?

Or Jumping into tackle?

You decide!

I thought that Pollard would have to have a good kicking game from the tee today and so far he is.

9-7 to the Boks. Boks good for their lead. Boks winning the collisions and the aerial battle. Penalty count 5-1.

Pollard has to up his kicking out of hand, he's kicked poorly 3/4 times now

profitius wrote:

wolfball wrote:Was that not a mile forward?

Looked like it.

Doesn't count if it's the ABs - they are allowed to pass the ball forwards

Fanster wrote:Tackled in the air?

Or Jumping into tackle?

You decide!

Did he have the ball when he jumped?mif he did then he jumped into the tackle. If he didn't then it was a tackle in the air.

Have to say, Garceres was a great call for this game, good spectacle so far, officiated really well

Moody penalized. Fair call. Big problem for the AB's is non release of the tackled player. I'm guessing not policed in the top 14. The AB's need to be more accurate at the clean out. The boks using their power. Still evenly poised.

I'm guessing they go for a big scrum, the penalty

Brilliant officiating from Garces.

SA's 10 having a poor game, du preez is keeping them well up for this despite that. Nice to see ABs penalized like a normal team. The yellow was sheer stupidity though. And the try pass was forward. Really strange when everything is Tmo to death that wasn't checked.

Poor last 3/4 minutes for NZ there, mistakes all around from Carter, Moody, Kaino and Smith.

Fanster wrote:Have to say, Garceres was a great call for this game, good spectacle so far, officiated really well

Have to agree with you on this one, Garces has been excellent. He has let the game flow.

The AB's are really under it here.