RWC Quarter Final: Springboks - Wallabies (09-10-2011, 18:00)

[TRF_Olyy]

May as well ask this again as no-one knew or answered when I posted this a few pages back.

Anyone know what that awesome jersey John Smit was wearing during the coin toss was (from memory many of the South African players were wearing them during their warm up)?

It was mostly white with almost lime green stars all over it. It looked kinda of different and unique. Can't find them anywhere on the net. Anyone know anything about them?

Just tried to watch the start of the match to see it, but the ITV online version starts as the players are walking out
Was it this:
https://www.sarugbyshop.co.za/index.php?productcategoryid=151&productcode=W-DUN-B975625(S)&showproduct=true&multiplesize=true
It's their warm up one, but the colours are inverted to what you described

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Just tried to watch the start of the match to see it, but the ITV online version starts as the players are walking out
Was it this:
https://www.sarugbyshop.co.za/index.php?productcategoryid=151&productcode=W-DUN-B975625(S)&showproduct=true&multiplesize=true
It's their warm up one, but the colours are inverted to what you described

That looks exactly like what I'm talking about, but as you said inverted. Maybe for away they have an inverted one. It looked a little better than the one you've linked Olyy (as that looks a little too limey to wear about places, lol), but that's a lot closer than I've ever got to finding them on the net. Thanks.

 

[kovana]

When Samoa lost against the Saffas last week.. A saffa fan sent me and my fellow samoans a nice message.

"Toodaloo"

 

[Jer1cho]

Justin Marshall wrote an article in the paper a couple of weeks ago complaining about the top teams doing what Pocock is doing in that video, he called it "re-tackling" the tackled player once he is on the ground. He isn't on his feet or even going for the ball in that video, blatantly just lying on the guy and grabbing him to slow down the ball. I know it's only one instance and I'm sure people could find numerous videos of every other player in the world doing the same thing, I'm not having a go at Pocock, I just hope like hell this sort of thing is policed (both ways) by Joubert in the semi. He is a good ref, hopefully he calls these types of things.

Saw an interesting comment about this game by someone saying Lawrence turned this game back into what it was like in '07, where you're better off not having the ball and risking getting counter attacked against. Bit ironic that SA finally rid themselves of the kick and chase game only to find out that would've suited them perfectly with the way he reffed the game.

Yeah. I'm giving up though. We lost, and that's just how it is. Getting cheated unfairly out of a tournament sucks, especially against the team we South Africans hate more than anyone. But, The Aussies are all happy, and if they go on to win this thing, at least we can say they weren't good enough to beat us on their own.

 

[Swillo5]

Jer1cho, you are a prime example of the world hates a springbok fan. Seriously, get over it. The better team won. It is true to say that bryce Lawrence had a shocker but he had a shocker both ways. I watched the game again and there were as many bad decisions against Australia as against south Africa. At the end of the day you have to adjust to the decisions that go against you and cope. Aussies di. SA did not.

I seriously cannot believe the level of incessant complaining by you blokes about the ref. Shut up And cop it. You do not have a god given right to win every test. Like i have said before, recent history shows that Australia is a superior side to south Africa. The better side is through to the semis. Instead of complaining you could congratulate Australia on a terrific defensive game and move on. Unfortunately you south Africans have never been gracoious in defeat so I don't suppose I should expect anything different.

 

[Siva Tau]

The better team won. .

Mate thats where your wrong and its why rugby often is hard to cop. It actually makes league better. In league 95% the time the best team wins but in rugby its often the case the best team loses.

I dont support SA obviously but Im all about the best teams winning. Many matches come to mind in WC where this has been the case. Not sure what the answer is, maybe adjustment of points for tries etc.

 

[TRF_RC]

...at least we can say they weren't good enough to beat us on their own.

And that thought sits nicely in place of where your 3rd world cup ***le could have been.
Come on, jericho, you're better than that.
Agreed there was some under-handed activities giong on from pocock, but it wasn't enough to make you lose the game.
SA had the better attack, Aus had the better defence - a total vice-versa to how we usually see it, but at the end of the day the deserved team won. Why? Because they scored more points than you.

Did the better team win in the Wales v SA match at the start of the world cup? No. But you deserved the win.
Maybe i think of it a little black and white, but like you said at the beginning of that post "We lost and that's just how it is."

 

[Swillo5]

Siva tau, the better team did win. Fact. They might not have been better in terms of possession or territory but they were clearly better in defense, they scored the only try, and accordingly they won the game. If the better team was judged on territory then SA would have won. The reality is we give the win to the team that scores more points than they concede. Australia did that. And more importantly, what EVERYONE, conveniently ignores in this discussion is how good the wallabies defense was. The ref didn't make key tackles. Games are won and lost in different ways and this one was won by crunching and courageous defense. You cant say SA were a better side because they played the beeter attacking rugby or because they had more ball - that ignores the level and quality of defence required to prevent them scoring more points. Surely if you think SA's attack was good enough to warrant calling them the better team then you have to accept that the team that puts on defense required to stop that attack is worthy of being called the best team on the night. That is the point that EVERYONE on this forum is missing.
Australia made 3 tackles to every one made by SA. It was a special effort and deserved the win. If we want to change the way we measure rugby by other than who scores the most points then maybe SA would have won. They didn't. Australia were therefore better and deserved the win.

 

[Black Heart]

Mate thats where your wrong and its why rugby often is hard to cop. It actually makes league better. In league 95% the time the best team wins but in rugby its often the case the best team loses.

I dont support SA obviously but Im all about the best teams winning. Many matches come to mind in WC where this has been the case. Not sure what the answer is, maybe adjustment of points for tries etc.

How does that make league better? All it proves is that there's less chance for big upsets.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Siva tau, the better team did win. Fact. They might not have been better in terms of possession or territory but they were clearly better in defense, they scored the only try, and accordingly they won the game. If the better team was judged on territory then SA would have won. The reality is we give the win to the team that scores more points than they concede. Australia did that. And more importantly, what EVERYONE, conveniently ignores in this discussion is how good the wallabies defense was. The ref didn't make key tackles. Games are won and lost in different ways and this one was won by crunching and courageous defense. You cant say SA were a better side because they played the beeter attacking rugby or because they had more ball - that ignores the level and quality of defence required to prevent them scoring more points. Surely if you think SA's attack was good enough to warrant calling them the better team then you have to accept that the team that puts on defense required to stop that attack is worthy of being called the best team on the night. That is the point that EVERYONE on this forum is missing.
Australia made 3 tackles to every one made by SA. It was a special effort and deserved the win. If we want to change the way we measure rugby by other than who scores the most points then maybe SA would have won. They didn't. Australia were therefore better and deserved the win.

The better team didn't win. The better team doesn't always win. I'd even admit that in our first game Wales were the better team on the day and had luck been a bit more on their side. Your defense wasn't anything special; we made huge gainway with limited attacking skill and the only reason you had any sort of organization in defense or turn-overs in critical stages was because of the referee. This is fact. I accept the loss and accept we did have our opportunities and didn't take them; we lost that match. That is part and parcel of the game and though Aus won I won't say they deserved it as such. Why do you even care what others think?

 

[TRF_heineken]

We snatched Defeat out of the Jaws of Victory and Australia snatched Victory over the Jaws of Defeat...

that's unfortunately how it goes... oh well, I'm now over it! our Bokke is safely home from a very long trip, they can rest a bit, spend some quality time with their friends and families and sit back and relax.

those guys who retired had an awesome career and have achieved something very few top rugby players have achieved: Winning the Tri-nations, B&I Lions, World Cup, and some even won the Super 14... That is really no small feat and they can walk tall with pride!

Time to focus on the future!

 

[Dizzy]

Well said. Although I don't really rate Smit, Matfield was a huge influence in world rugby and a great ambassador for the game. One of my fondest memories is going through the Bulls changing room at Loftus and sitting in Matfield's spot. It was an honour to follow such a great career.

 

[Jer1cho]

I hooked a couple of nice ones with that one!

Seriously though, good luck to the rest of the teams in the tournament. It wasn't our destiny to win this game. We have much to look forward to know, and in the next tournament, we will have a fresh, young team, and hopefully a competent coach. It's the end of an era for us, and we will be the better for it.

 

[Bossco]

A loss is the best thing that could happen to SA rugby if they now use this as an opportunity to bring in fresh blood and a foreign coach without the baggage. Someone who will utilise the fantastic backline talent and not let how the team play be dictated by a World Cup glory obsessed group of senior players.

 

[TRF_heineken]

A loss is the best thing that could happen to SA rugby if they now use this as an opportunity to bring in fresh blood and a foreign coach without the baggage. Someone who will utilise the fantastic backline talent and not let how the team play be dictated by a World Cup glory obsessed group of senior players.

Why do we need a foreign coach?? We have more than enough brilliant coaches of our own!


PS. Holy Crap this Petition Page on Facebook now has 45000+ people!!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Petit...er-Reffing-A-Rugby-Game-Again/286992594653732

 

[Swillo5]

I don't care what others think. I just dislike hypocricy. You south Africans accuse us Aussies of complaining and whingeing but at the same time you simply cannot accept that a better team won and you lost. It is to the point where you just can't even see how pathetic and hypocritical your whining is

 

[TRF_heineken]

I don't care what others think. I just dislike hypocricy. You south Africans accuse us Aussies of complaining and whingeing but at the same time you simply cannot accept that a better team won and you lost. It is to the point where you just can't even see how pathetic and hypocritical your whining is

Bail is that you??

 

[donmcdazzle]

Siva tau, the better team did win. Fact. They might not have been better in terms of possession or territory but they were clearly better in defense, they scored the only try, and accordingly they won the game. If the better team was judged on territory then SA would have won. The reality is we give the win to the team that scores more points than they concede. Australia did that. And more importantly, what EVERYONE, conveniently ignores in this discussion is how good the wallabies defense was. The ref didn't make key tackles. Games are won and lost in different ways and this one was won by crunching and courageous defense. You cant say SA were a better side because they played the beeter attacking rugby or because they had more ball - that ignores the level and quality of defence required to prevent them scoring more points. Surely if you think SA's attack was good enough to warrant calling them the better team then you have to accept that the team that puts on defense required to stop that attack is worthy of being called the best team on the night. That is the point that EVERYONE on this forum is missing.
Australia made 3 tackles to every one made by SA. It was a special effort and deserved the win. If we want to change the way we measure rugby by other than who scores the most points then maybe SA would have won. They didn't. Australia were therefore better and deserved the win.

aaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh you're ignoring everything people have been saying. Half the reason the Oz defence was so good was because they were allowed to slow the ball down to a snails pace and regroup. It's very hard to attack with slow ball, and with no way of generating quick ball. It was happening both ways, but as SA had all the ball, they obviously suffered more.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I'll just leave this here for any who might need it/find it interesting.



Also, i find I really love Aussie-baiting

 

[Sam91]

found this diapo on comments on GaGR

text book schalk