Springboks A Different Team At Home

[Te Puke Thunder]

It's been so easy to dismiss the Boks three games into the 2010 Tri Nations. They have struggled for direction without Du Preez, there attack has been all over the show, their defense has been found wanting on numerous occasions and in general have looked very flat or non enthused.

We have to remember that most of the top players in South Africa had to play in the final of this years Super 14, while both the New Zealand and Australian players got to refresh and spend more time in their national team camps.

The Boks also had to travel to Wales for a centenary match. An invitation that the SARU was reluctant to accept because of the extra work load it would put on an already over scheduled Springbok team. Then it was a mad rush home to meet the French in a one off test followed by two against the Azurri, not to mention playing in the shadow of the Soccer World Cup.

I'm not trying to defend the Springboks but I think there are a number of factors why they have started the 2010 Tri Nations so poorly. They will be a much tougher opponent at home, they'll be back in their comfort zone and now that the Soccer World Cup is over they'll have access to the traditional stadiums of South African rugby.

All international rugby teams go through these phases and this champion Springbok team is sure to bounce back with vengance. I'm hoping that it's now and not next year when we have the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand. It's hard work being a one-eyed All Blacks supporter.

To Springbok fans worldwide - Dont despair.

In the words of Jake The Muss... "You'll Be Back"

 

[Zak Merou]

i agree .but i my opinion the major factor has been the absence in the squad .du preez,Francois Steyn .Botta ...

 

[Zak Merou]

i agree .but i my opinion the major factor has been the absence in the squad .du preez,Francois Steyn .Botta ...

 

[Sam Owen]

Yeah for real but in saying that all 3 of the teams are stronger at home not just the boks.

 

[woodward]

Personally I think the last three games have been an fair display of the standard of South African rugby.

 

[Teh Mite]

Considering the balance of power in the Super 14, the last 3 games are undeniable proof that Club/Provincial rugby and international rugby have absolutely no baring on each other what so ever.

 

[Jer1cho]

This is the first time it has happened though. Usually the Super 14 momentum does wonders for the Springbok team. I have absolutely NO DOUBT, that if the Bulls 22 had been converted into the Springboks, they would have done better than this bunch of misfits.

-Bulls won the tournament in 2007 (Sharks finalists), SA won the World Cup in 2007
-Bulls won the tournament in 2009, SA won Tri-Nations and Lions Tour
-Bulls won the tournament in 2010 (Stormers finalists), *Gulp*

 

[User1245]

So guess the deciding factor is that there are more Stormer's in the team, much like the 2002-2003 era. Damn mountain goats.

 

[Sker]

15. F Steyn
14. Heever
13. JdJ
12. JdV
11. Hougaard
10. Steyn (Who else)
9. Pienaar

8. Kankowski
7. Smith
6. Louw

5. Bekker
4. Rossouw

3. Botha
2. Liebenberg/Botha
1. Beast

what do you guys think?

 

[Teh Mite]

I'm sure a few of our South African members would prefer Peter De Villiers to play tighthead for the next few matches...

 

[Sker]

Bwahahaha, we sure would...

 

[allblacksfreak]

Is it not every team's normality to be stronger at home (except perhaps the NH teams )

 

[William18]

Considering the balance of power in the Super 14, the last 3 games are undeniable proof that Club/Provincial rugby and international rugby have absolutely no baring on each other what so ever.

That has always been the case. Australia has always done pretty badly in the Super14 but are at least competitive in internationals.

I think people can talk up a bit much about how bad South Africa has been. I mean, just last year there was a lot of doom and gloom about New Zealand rugby with a lot of people saying that we could never beat the Springboks. I don't think this year's Tri Nations has any bearing on what will happen at the world cup next year. If I was a South African, I wouldn't be too worried.

 

[woodward]

It's not soccer ffs, the world cup is not everything and winning it does not make you world champion alone.

 

[allblacksfreak]

It's not soccer ffs, the world cup is not everything and winning it does not make you world champion alone.

Just curious, so how do we become world champions then?

 

[William18]

It's not soccer ffs, the world cup is not everything and winning it does not make you world champion alone.

Wining the world cup does make you world champion. I think the world cup is held in higher regard by rugby fans than by soccer fans. However, I do agree that the world cup shouldn't be everything. I was just trying to say that even though South Africa has lost the last three games they are not all of a sudden a bad team.

 

[ranger]

Considering the balance of power in the Super 14, the last 3 games are undeniable proof that Club/Provincial rugby and international rugby have absolutely no baring on each other what so ever.

I think what it shows is that stacking a couple of club teams is to the detriment of the country as a whole.. Sure they have S14 trophies to show off now, but they have written off the lions and cheetahs in the process, this is what happens when you only have two teams of players to choose from

Wining the world cup does make you world champion. I think the world cup is held in higher regard by rugby fans than by soccer fans. However, I do agree that the world cup shouldn't be everything. I was just trying to say that even though South Africa has lost the last three games they are not all of a sudden a bad team.

Seriously?

 

[William18]

I think what it shows is that stacking a couple of club teams is to the detriment of the country as a whole.. Sure they have S14 trophies to show off now, but they have written off the lions and cheetahs in the process, this is what happens when you only have two teams of players to choose from



Seriously?

Yeah, relative to the other competitions at least. Soccer has other competitions that are very important. Quite a few soccer fans have a club before country approach that you don't find very often in rugby. Certainly in soccer "the world cup is not everything" because competitions like the European Championship, Champions League and Premier League are all massive events. In rugby, however, it seems that winning the world cup is all that really counts. No one goes crazy when their team wins the NPC or Super 14. The All Blacks can win the Tri Nations but people don't seem to celebrate that much when we win it. Everything is almost done to build for world cups.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

That might be true, that those competitions are major events but it's definitely not true that the World Cup is less important to football fans than to rugby fans. I think the Football World Cup actually has more status because of the whole history (Started in 1930) and has been a major event where all continents are represented. In the Rugby World Cup there's a rule where all quarter-finalists automatically qualify for the next tournament. In football the only countries who are qualified automatically is the host nation and the current champions. That's why you sometimes see a semi-finalist missing the next World Cup (England in 94, Sweden in 98, Holland in 02, Turkey in 06 to name a few). There's much more competition in the qualification already.

With Rugby it's actually a contest between the Tri-Nations and Six-Nations with only lately Argentina playing a role. Countries like Samoa and Fiji are also present but are never serious contenders for the ***le and hardly manage to survive the group stage which results in basically the same 8 out of 9 possible quarter-finalists every tournament (England, Argentina, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Scotland, France, Ireland and Wales).

Canada (once), Samoa and Fiji (Both twice) are the only teams besides the big 9 that made it to the quarter finales in the 20 years of Rugby World Cup.

In Football in the last 20 years we've had the following countries in de semi's:Argentina, Brazil, Germany, England, Italy, Bulgaria, Sweden, Holland, Croatia, South Korea, Turkey, Portugal, France, Uruguay and Spain. And that's only the semi finals since 1990. In the quarter-finals we've had Cameroon, Denmark, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Ireland, Yugoslavia, USA, Senegal, Ukraine, Ghana and Paraguay.

That's 15 semi-finalists in 20 years and another 11 quarter-finalists in the same era. That's a total of 31 teams, compared to the 11 rugby teams to make it to the quarter-finals in 20 years.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it explains why rugby fans might think the FIFA World Cup is less prestigious to the fans. In fact, it makes it so much more important. A country like Holland played it's 3rd World Cup final but hasn't won any. We were devastaded when we lost against Spain. Countries like Sweden, Uruguay, Bulgaria, Turkey, Korea and Croatia are relative small countries but made it to the semi-finals the last 20 years. That's what makes the FIFA World Cup so thrilling! Any country can get far in the tournament if they had a good day.


Anyway, my point is that I understand why some rugby fans might see the RWC are a more prestigious price compared to the FIFA World Cup but that's not the case. It's just more of a challenge in Football to get through to the last 8. In rugby the big countries always get through to advance from the groupstage which keeps morale in those countries high.

 

[William18]

That might be true, that those competitions are major events but it's definitely not true that the World Cup is less important to football fans than to rugby fans. I think the Football World Cup actually has more status because of the whole history (Started in 1930) and has been a major event where all continents are represented. In the Rugby World Cup there's a rule where all quarter-finalists automatically qualify for the next tournament. In football the only countries who are qualified automatically is the host nation and the current champions. That's why you sometimes see a semi-finalist missing the next World Cup (England in 94, Sweden in 98, Holland in 02, Turkey in 06 to name a few). There's much more competition in the qualification already.

With Rugby it's actually a contest between the Tri-Nations and Six-Nations with only lately Argentina playing a role. Countries like Samoa and Fiji are also present but are never serious contenders for the ***le and hardly manage to survive the group stage which results in basically the same 8 out of 9 possible quarter-finalists every tournament (England, Argentina, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Scotland, France, Ireland and Wales).

Canada (once), Samoa and Fiji (Both twice) are the only teams besides the big 9 that made it to the quarter finales in the 20 years of Rugby World Cup.

In Football in the last 20 years we've had the following countries in de semi's:Argentina, Brazil, Germany, England, Italy, Bulgaria, Sweden, Holland, Croatia, South Korea, Turkey, Portugal, France, Uruguay and Spain. And that's only the semi finals since 1990. In the quarter-finals we've had Cameroon, Denmark, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Ireland, Yugoslavia, USA, Senegal, Ukraine, Ghana and Paraguay.

That's 15 semi-finalists in 20 years and another 11 quarter-finalists in the same era. That's a total of 31 teams, compared to the 11 rugby teams to make it to the quarter-finals in 20 years.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it explains why rugby fans might think the FIFA World Cup is less prestigious to the fans. In fact, it makes it so much more important. A country like Holland played it's 3rd World Cup final but hasn't won any. We were devastaded when we lost against Spain. Countries like Sweden, Uruguay, Bulgaria, Turkey, Korea and Croatia are relative small countries but made it to the semi-finals the last 20 years. That's what makes the FIFA World Cup so thrilling! Any country can get far in the tournament if they had a good day.


Anyway, my point is that I understand why some rugby fans might see the RWC are a more prestigious price compared to the FIFA World Cup but that's not the case. It's just more of a challenge in Football to get through to the last 8. In rugby the big countries always get through to advance from the groupstage which keeps morale in those countries high.

The FIFA World Cup is obviously a far more prestigious and a far harder competition. All I meant was that the number one focus for just about every rugby fan is the world cup with their club or the Tri Nations in far second place. In soccer, I think there is a sizable amount of fans who either prefer another competition to the world cup or at least have another competition in second place. I wasn't dir