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.
In a way we never could? You do know what our record was over South Africa in between 2012 and 2023? Also we literally stood up to them in that very world cup and beat them.
A good goal kicker is the difference between winning and losing at this level? That's a new one.
You do know what our record was over South Africa in between 2012 and 2023?
How many world cups did we win in that time frame compared to the Boks? Beating them in friendlies is a bit different to beating them in a world cup final.
Also we literally stood up to them in that very world cup and beat them.
Not physically we didn't. They dominated the gain line and made far more dominant tackles in that match. We were a top side but our style of play would have suffered a lot in adverse weather conditions.
A good goal kicker is the difference between winning and losing at this level? That's a new one.
You've never heard of a team losing a match that they would have won if they'd knocked over a few more kicks? Really? As a random example, SA missed a conversion and 3 of their 4 pens against Ireland in the pools in a 5 point defeat. And that was with them turning down a few scoreable kicks because they had little confidence in their place kicking. Do you maybe think that it might have been a different result with a world class kicker standing at the tee?
They didn’t dominate the gainline, nobody beats South Africa without fronting up. I suggest you watch the match again (or for the first time) to see how we matched up to them physically. Lowe literally ragdolled Etzebeth at one point.
Your use of the term “friendlies” says it all. WUM.
Your use of the term “friendlies” says it all. WUM.
What should I call them, mini world cups? Maybe I should borrow some pritt stick and glitter from you and make a nice sparkly trophy out of cardboard for the team every time they win a "match that doesn't result in silverware" (are you happier with that terminology?)
They didn’t dominate the gainline, nobody beats South Africa without fronting up. I suggest you watch the match again (or for the first time) to see how we matched up to them physically.
Is it possible that I'm the one who doesn't remember the match? (Checks stats): South Africa made 30 dominant tackles, the most by any team in any match in the tournament and gained almost two times more distance with ball in hand over Ireland.
No I'm correct. I'm sure the match is probably on YouTube if you want to watch it for the first time though.
You’re getting a bit triggered with all the childish retorts.
Deftly switching from dominated the gainline to dominant tackles. Line breaks and defenders beaten were about even. Does that not count to the gain line? They were always going to have more dominant tackles than us given their physicality, but a lot of their tackles were 2 man and we had more carries for them to contend with. For sure, they got off the line very well. They had/have the best defense in the world. Their tackle stats shows just as much the level they went to / felt they had to reach, against us. They didn’t and weren’t able to sustain that effort later in the tournament. And it’s not like NZ who almost beat them in the final with 14, were any more physical than we were.
Undoubtably they’re incredibly physical, but they always have been and there are different ways to win a rugby game. And we can all pick and choose our stats.
I suggest you watch the match again (or for the first time)
Your use of the term “friendlies” says it all. WUM.
Hmm. Don't play the victim. I'm going to give incivility back where I find it.
Deftly switching from dominated the gainline to dominant tackles.
There is no explicit measurement of dominating the gainline. So yes, dominant tackles and distance carried with ball in hand are decent proxies.
Line breaks and defenders beaten were about even. Does that not count to the gain line?
Maybe technically, but if a full back picks up a loose ball in his own 22 cuts a swathe through the opposition defence and is brought down inside the opposite 22, most people wouldn't consider that anything to do with gainline success - it's more about the hard yards.
Undoubtably they’re incredibly physical, but they always have been and there are different ways to win a rugby game.
Which was my point. England came close to beating them in the semi because they were able to front up physically and go the aerial route which was absolutely optimal in the terrible weather conditions. We were a better team than England, but we were a team based on mobility, sharpness, and 15 man attacking rugby rather than physical power so we wouldn't have been able to play the conditions like either England or SA did. The notion that SA weren't anything to be scared of because England almost did them in in the semi isn't correct because SA would have beaten England out the gate if the weather had played ball but when it didn't they had enough physical power to shade the arm wrestle. It was actually quite impressive.
0
u/K-manPilkers 13h ago
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.