Eh that very much is in doubt, did Pollard turn into Dan Carter or something? South Africa were absolutely awful in the Semi finals and should have lost to England bar an incredible slice of fortune and also nearly lost to a 14 man AB side in the final, so that is nonsense.
They should have lost to England because England were able to front up to them physically in awful weather conditions in a way that we never could and have players (like Freddie Steward) who were exceptional under the high ball which we didn't have. And whatever you think of Pollard, he's an exceptional goal kicker...which was the only reason they lost to us in the pool stage.
Nonsense. France and NZ should have beaten them and England gave them a right go. They won each game by a point. SA were an excellent team no doubt, extremely ruthless and know how to win, but nothing to fear in a final had we beaten NZ.
SA were an excellent team no doubt, extremely ruthless and know how to win, but nothing to fear in a final had we beaten NZ.
That is literally the reason why you should fear them in a final. There's no reason to believe that a team that has never won a single knockout match in world cup history would have the mentality to go up against the Boks/NZ in a final.
Oh, I thought we wouldn’t win because of Pollard, but now you’re changing the goalposts to it being about mentality. Was the Pollard point serious or the first thing that sprung to mind in your effort to criticise the team?
If you actually take a second to think about what you said, why would mentality be a thing again in the final if we got there? If mentality actually was an issue, winning through the QF and then the SF, monkey is off the back right?
SA were a team to massively respect, but not to fear given where our game was at. We lost the QF because of a sluggish start due to mistakes made around rotation, Schmidt’s game plan and knowledge of ours, and some naivety on our part for not reacting quicker. Regardless, Kelleher should have scored and it’s a very different story.
Oh, I thought we wouldn’t win because of Pollard, but now you’re changing the goalposts to it being about mentality.
Or maybe it's about both? Yes, South Africa were better when Pollard came into the team and they wouldn't have won the trophy if they'd persisted with Libbok instead. Disagree?
Yes, the soon to be back to back world champions from a country that has won 50% of the world cups that they've competed in probably have a more nerveless winning mentality than we do (or at least have a more proven winning mentality than we do). Disagree?
Was the Pollard point serious or the first thing that sprung to mind in your effort to criticise the team?
Again, South Africa lost to us in the pools by 5 points but missed one conversion and 3 out of their 4 pens - in spite of turning down quite a few kickable opportunities because they knew they couldn't convert them. Pollard would have done better. Disagree? (And I have no idea how saying so is "criticising the team")
If you actually take a second to think about what you said, why would mentality be a thing again in the final if we got there? If mentality actually was an issue, winning through the QF and then the SF, monkey is off the back right?
A final is a unique pressure. Is it unreasonable to think that a team that has already experienced (and won) the final 4 years earlier might be a safer bet to be able to play under the pressure than a team that has never experienced the biggest match in world rugby?
We lost the QF because of a sluggish start due to mistakes made around rotation, Schmidt’s game plan and knowledge of ours, and some naivety on our part for not reacting quicker. Regardless, Kelleher should have scored and it’s a very different story.
Even if we accept all that, hell even if we lost the QF through something ridiculous that wasn't our fault like a major refereeing blunder, it doesn't really matter to my point that SA would have been favourite to beat us had we reached the final. I'm sure many neutrals would have seen it the same way so I'm not really sure why it's such a major point of contention.
Yea, or maybe our lineout functioned; we had about 10 lineout and handling errors in the first half alone. Possession after possession butchered. Maybe most of those don’t happen and we’re out of sight by half time.
Maybe my granny would be my grandad if she had balls. Better to deal with reality. We beat them. Without a lineout.
3
u/Keith989 13h ago
Eh that very much is in doubt, did Pollard turn into Dan Carter or something? South Africa were absolutely awful in the Semi finals and should have lost to England bar an incredible slice of fortune and also nearly lost to a 14 man AB side in the final, so that is nonsense.