Ah, I see you've gone into 'post massive obscure articles because you can't actually make a point on your own' mode. It's all right mate.
Anyway, I fail to see how your articles help your argument at all. The second one for example:
"
The Chiefs beat the Bulls last week by meeting the challenge head on. That is what you have to do against South African teams. You need strong body language, good tackle technique, smart defence and a big heart or they will come straight over the top of you. And they will keep coming."
So, essentially what Smith is saying here is that the Chiefs were able to change their style of play to overcome the Bulls. They were able to adapt their game. Sounds an awful lot like the ability New Zealand have to vary their game that I alluded to above. You're making the argument yourself in the Reds vs Sharks thread that the Sharks have been unable to adapt their style to a so called 'New Zealand' game type. This would seem to validate my point that it is the ability of New Zealand (and by extension their franchises) to vary and adapt their game that makes them the best team in the world, whereas (by your own admission) South African sides aren't able to do this to the same extent.
What has doing the basic of rugby correctly and be disciplined to do with a style or a game plan? Are you trying to create a argument where there is none?
I don't deny the fact that South Africa won two world cups. But that's not a reflection of where they are now. They've endured a torrid couple of seasons and we highly unimpressive during the World Cup. It has looked since the 2009 end of year tours that teams have figured them out. Losses to New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, Scotland, Northampon and Saracens would seem to back this fact up. The test series against England did little to banish doubts. If I were a South African fan, I'd be far from happy.
Do I care about a SA 2nd string side who consisted mostly from players playing in the UK lost two midweek games against two premiership sides? Nope Am I happy about the losses? Disappointed yes but happy that he is gone
2011 we lost by two points in the WC. Tough luck. Things did not go our way. But do I worry about a 2nd string side losing to Aus and NZ away? No. We did beat NZ in the last game and we did beat England in the test series with a team put together in a week so it does not look as bad as you try to make it. We are rebuilding and a lot of young guys coming through so things do not look too bad. But are you happy with Ireland? People in glass houses shpuldn't throw stones you know.
They all broke off from Pangea, at some stage, I've never seen the different between the size of one island and the other. The continent is called Oceania, and encompasses New Zealand. In any case, this is completely beside the point. If you'd just said it was an impressive feat due to their small population at the beginning as opposed to that silly island comment I wouldn't have to deal with this baffonery.
Oceania is not a continent. It is 25000 Islands and Nations that is spread over the Pacific region. You normally hear about Oceania with FIFA WC Qualifiers
Well done, you've completely missed the point. The point of this video was to show that England did indeed play with flair. There are some outstanding back line moves in that package. If I'd wanted to bulk up the try count I easily could have. But that's a stat, and as you say, stats are often pointless.
Stas are not pointless. They can be looked in lot of ways. But my first post did not say they are pointless did it? Few backline moves don't mean their expansive.
But you are correct I guess SA and their teams probaly pay boring rugby
I'm ending this argument now. I have better ways to waste my time than this. If you want to think that SOUTH AFRICA R TEH BEST!!!!1!!one1! then go ahead.
Did I say that or are you trying to put words in my mouth? I have answered you respectfully through this entire thread. Why are you turning into a keyboard gangster and started shooting in caps?