APV1 says...

I'm in no doubt that the avergae Bok score should be above the average England score. But these are a joke. Either the English scores are too low, or these are too high. Or a bit of both.

Just look at who got 6/10 in each team, for example. Then watch the match and read the reasons given. No consistency between the two articles.

Posted 12:37 18th June 2012

melkdave says...

I think the scores are a little inflated also,,the only players who warrant their high scores are Hougaard-Etzebeth and BDV,the rest i feel didnt really do anything imho to warrant getting an extra point ,which PR seem to have given and for JP.Pitersen 2 points .But then its all subjective ,and player ratings really are meaningless

Posted 20:40 17th June 2012

scot_rsa says...

Agree with JayStarr, that Bok bench was always weak and it almost cost them. Flip and Wynand looked like pretty boys who didn't want to put in any graft. Kruger had a negative effect, they all did. Rather WP Nel, Mostert/Bakkies and Juan de Jongh. And Mvovo before Basson. Early days for Meyer but if he keeps faith with that bench he will lose a lot of people's faith. And Morne? Never seen him take the ball into contact as much, was that intentional? Actually feel for the guy but Lambie may be worth a shot.

Posted 08:12 17th June 2012

JayStarr says...

I think those scores are pretty fair...

And I think it also highlights the fact that the Springbok bench - especially Kruger, Vd Merwe and Olivier - were weak... They didn't contribute anything. At least Keegan and Adriaan tried and failed, instead of just being nobodies like the 3 mentioned.

Now that we have the series wrapped up, I would like to see Heyneke start Keegan, Pienaar and Lambie at 8, 9 and 10 and bring Aplon in at 15. We WILL score more tries then.

Posted 22:23 16th June 2012

philipjfry says...

@PR: Some of those scores are super inflated, were we watching the same game?

Posted 19:48 16th June 2012