philipjfry says...

@Wallaroo: Thanks mate, much appreciated. If you liked Invictus a good book to read about our recent history is 'Country of my skull' by Antjie Krog. It should be easy enough to find.

Posted 10:42 13th October 2012

celticspirit says...

Good call, helluvanite. The Wobblies are not the best attacking team in the world, of course. That honour, like most others except for scrummaging maybe and sometimes lineouts, would have to go to the AllBlacks.

As for the winning ration and bloemboy, the winning ration mainly has slipped because almost all the games you play are vs. NZ and AUS. The few at World Cups vs Tonga, Samoa (who btw should have beaten South Africa last time out) or Canada hardly matter. And if you lose more often than not to NZ (home or away) and lost like 6 out of the last 8 vs AUS, well, what do you expect your winning ratio to be. And there were some very strong teams in their day, too, like the early2000s Wallabies and the ABs since (and maybe England pre-2003).

So what I am saying is: It is much easier for ENG or FRA to rake up wins against my hopeless Scotland and Italy than for you guys vs the other 2 best teams in the world - the Bokke obviously being one of the top-3 and hence not just above average. Just above average would be Samoa or Ireland... ;)

Posted 09:51 12th October 2012

MacTavish says...

@bloemboy... I think the Stats are pretty simple really. RSA, and the All Blacks would be first to admit this, is the hardest place to win (NZ aside of course). Althought NZ does pick up wins there look at everyone elses record there, you guys are formidible at home. The issue is away. Shocking in NZ, not too flash in Aussie either. What RSA needs to do is forget where they are playing and just play, the All Blacks have far superior mental strength in that regard. 0-10 down last weekend in SA and still win comfortably. I dont think I have ever seen a Bok team that would have been able to replicate being 0-10 ....in NZ ....and come back to win 32-16. That is the issue for you guys.

Posted 21:08 10th October 2012

bloemboy says...

@hellovanite, the refs in days gone by were not up to the level that they are today, agreed, though this was an international problem and the Boks suffered the same fate when travelling. I hold the AB's in highest regard and admire their attitude that 2nd best is not good enough. I cannot endorse an acceptance that we are merely better than average, or that we will lose 40% of our games. Considering that we now play matches against other teams as well such as Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, Canada etc, our win ratio should be MUCH higher. Just because teams of years gone by have had to rebuild strength after readmission does not allow us to merely accept this as a new status quo. From 1992 to 2000, when Sa should arguably have been at its most vulnerable, we player 82 tests, lost 26, drew 2 and won 54 for a win ratio of 66%. Why then are we getting worse when we have now had 20 years back in international rugby and chaps that are playing now were born after our first readmission test. For us to have a ratio of 62% means we must be averaging under 60% since 2000. This means we are not a rugby superpower and we are deluding ourselves by living in the past and thinking so. SA supporters have every right to expect the management to return us to that status because the honeymoon is over now.

Posted 11:03 10th October 2012

hellovanite says...

The Wallabies are the best attacking team in the world.... come again???

Posted 08:32 10th October 2012

MacTavish says...

"The Wallabies are the best attacking team in the world but when they tried to run it from all over against the All Blacks they scored '0' - The fact they scored 0 means they are not the best attacking team in the world. For the Rugby Championship, Aussie let in 36 more points than they scored. So Heyneke, your logic is totally flawed!

Posted 21:29 09th October 2012

Nicholas41 says...

SA have been to the top twice and will win it again, but to stay there? No, there wil always be developments and changes that can de-rail a side. the best sides are the ones that get that de-railing the least; and that's NZ.

Posted 19:19 09th October 2012

philipjfry says...

@letsgoboks: He's in a mess, his management is in a mess and his players are underperforming. I'm not doubting his potential to succeed, I'm just not willing to wait for it. I expect better than 62%, we all should.

Posted 17:53 09th October 2012

JayStarr says...

I have complained about HM a lot, but I have no doubt that when he finally learns the lessons he still needs to learn (and gets better quality assistants) he will take the Springboks to the top. He took the Bulls from the bottom of the Currie Cup and Super 14 logs and made them champions... He is a clever guy and a great leader of men - I think especially because he is clued up about sports psychology. He is not getting it right at the moment, but as with Clive Woodward, when things start coming together they will come together with hellfire and brimstone. The good news is that he is learning and adpating pretty quickly.

Posted 16:33 09th October 2012

philipjfry says...

'I thought I'd be given some time because I took over such a new team'

I just don't accept this. Would the AB supporters have a statement like this after their WC exit in 2007?

'In the history of Springbok rugby, we've won 62 percent of our games. So when we go to New Zealand - where we've only won 3 out of 24 games'

That sounds like complete defeatism. If this interview was transcribed word-for-word it's shocking that he can quote the stats so nonchalantly. I don't want to support a coach who accepts the 'facts' so easily.

Posted 15:56 09th October 2012