Rugby: All rugby discussion

Baxterman

Registered User
Aug 27, 2017
6,939
1,499
England vs. South Africa final.

So who do you have winning the whole thing?

If South Africa wins, it will be the first time a team has lost a game in the tournament, and gone on to win.

If England win, it means they have beaten all of the big 4 Southern Hemispheres teams.

Clocks are changing, so it will be a 2am kick off in Vancouver! Sigh.

It is hard for me to see England losing, although I would have said that about NZ before the semi's although I think England-NZ is closer than SA-England.

England has the better team and is playing better right now. SA is very effective at playing their style and maybe they can get England to play that way as well and squeak out a win, but I think England will be better prepared to deal with it than a team like Wales and win fairly easily.
 

I am not exposed

Registered User
Mar 16, 2014
21,911
10,034
Vancouver
It is hard for me to see England losing, although I would have said that about NZ before the semi's although I think England-NZ is closer than SA-England.

England has the better team and is playing better right now. SA is very effective at playing their style and maybe they can get England to play that way as well and squeak out a win, but I think England will be better prepared to deal with it than a team like Wales and win fairly easily.

Exactly what I'm thinking as well. But, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm English, so I am pessimistic!
 

Fighter

Registered User
Jan 1, 2004
11,689
904
Trieste, Italy
Again, show me where I said all Polynesian All Blacks were born in NZ.

You've told me I said this, so I'm waiting for you to show me. You keep quoting me saying "pretty much all".

Does "pretty much all" mean the same thing? No. Seems pretty easy to figure out for the little man who keeps throwing out the personal attacks. Why can't you do this very simple thing?

So, show me where I said all Polynesian All Blacks are born in NZ. Why is this so hard when you're so adamant it happened?

Until you can do that, there's no point engaging further with you because you're obviously just making things up.

My post got deleted, for whatever reason.

Anyway let's give it another go.

Again, you came in spouting uninformed crap about NZ. But you keep wanting to get upset about facts about SA lol.

I pointed out a well know rugby related fact, while you just go off over SA's problems (rapes, gun violence etc) which have nothing to do with rugby and our discussion. I said I was willing to talk about that privately as it wasn't related to this forum, you ignored that and continued because you are bitter and delusional. SA is such a terrible country, yet it's the destination of choice for millions of people, ask yourself why then ask yourself if this wouldn't create a problem to any country in the world. Then we can go deeper and deeper into political corruption, social inequalities, wealth distribution, past history (obviously), geopolitical situation in the region etc... But I doubt someone like you would understand a single thing of that.

So, as I'll continue to post until you can answer. Show me where I said all Polynesia All Blacks are born in NZ.

Okay

Oh look another ignorant person who doesn't realise pretty much all of our Polynesian players are born in New Zealand.

4 of your Polynesians were not born in NZ. That's not all and not even "pretty much all".
Three of those four Polynesians played in the semifinal and we can safely say that without them the ABs would have been even worse.
ABs aren't a "pure" system as you desperately try to spin it. Can't wait to quote yourself again and again lol
 

I am not exposed

Registered User
Mar 16, 2014
21,911
10,034
Vancouver
New Zealand hammer Wales, meaning Gatlands reign ends in defeat, and New Zealand are the only tier one nation he didn't beat with Wales. Overall, Wales are in a far better place now than when Gatland took over. We shall see if they keep to this level.
 

Morozov

The Devil Killer
Sep 18, 2007
13,846
364
Still no quote of me saying all Polynesian All Blacks were born in NZ.

Probably because it never actually happened.
 

member 305909

Guest
Can South-Africa winning the tournament be considered something of a surprise? They weren't pre-tournament favourites.
 

Siamese Dream

Registered User
Feb 5, 2011
75,216
1,238
United Britain of Great Kingdom
I guess that's what you get for thinking the game is won before it's even played.

Saved from weeks or even months of English media arrogance.

Was trying to explain this to someone at work, it's not nearly as bad as the football/soccer but he couldn't for the life of him understand why I wouldn't support England even as a Wales fan because I've lived half of my life here and have some English family. I did say I'd support England against certain teams like France, NZ or Australia but I've always had more of a soft spot for South Africa.

As soon as Sinckler went down in the opening minutes I knew this would be a struggle for England, because they'd both be losing him and making a replacement prop play 78 minutes. Then when Youngs threw that dreadful pass to nobody about 20 minutes in that was when it became evident they hadn't turned up today.
 

Kiwi

Registered User
Mar 5, 2016
21,071
16,044
The Naki
Can South-Africa winning the tournament be considered something of a surprise? They weren't pre-tournament favourites.

The All Blacks were pre tournament favourites but there was more than a hint of vulnerability about them and I'd have thought South Africa and England were the teams that you would have thought about next

If your ranked in the top 3 pre tournament I don't think them winning can be seen as a surprise
 
  • Like
Reactions: I am not exposed

I am not exposed

Registered User
Mar 16, 2014
21,911
10,034
Vancouver
Can South-Africa winning the tournament be considered something of a surprise? They weren't pre-tournament favourites.

No. As others have said they were one of favourites, and the bookies had them as second favourites. They won the Rugby Championship, and had some impressive results this year.

New Zealand destroy Ireland. Then England dominate New Zealand. Then South Africa manhandle England. Who had lost to New Zealand in the group stage. Just kind of funny how that worked out.

Well done South Africa. They were definitely the better team in the final. Their tactics were spot on. Some of the English errors were schoolboy. Even though we were 12-6 down at halftime, which is obviously not much, I didn't think we would come back and win. Would have loved England to win, but South Africa are my second team, so not too upset. Always had a soft spot for them since the 95 world cup. Also went to the Springbok museum in Cape Town which was very cool. And I support their teams in the Super Rugby, and enjoy watching the Currie cup here and there.

A lot of credit has to be given to Rassie Erasmus. Just a couple of years ago South African Rugby was in the doldrums. He really turned it around. Won the Rugby Championship and World Cup in the same year. South Africa now tie New Zealand for three titles. They have never conceded a try in a final either which is kind of crazy. Also they have only played in 7 tournaments. They missed the first two due to apartheid. So three wins in seven is very impressive.

As for England, this is still a pretty young squad. Last time we won the World Cup, it was basically the pinnacle of most of that team. So I'm pretty hopefully heading into the future.

This was a great World Cup. My overall favourite is still probably 2007, which we also lost to South Africa. Still, there was a lot to like about this World Cup. Upsets, host nation doing well and making the group stages, a new champion (just delighted it wasn't New Zealand again!), some great rugby, and overall a good atmosphere in a place not famed for rugby. Definitely the best World Cup since 2007.
 

I am not exposed

Registered User
Mar 16, 2014
21,911
10,034
Vancouver
The All Blacks were pre tournament favourites but there was more than a hint of vulnerability about them and I'd have thought South Africa and England were the teams that you would have thought about next

If your ranked in the top 3 pre tournament I don't think them winning can be seen as a surprise

Yeah, the All Blacks were the favourites, but there wasn't quite the same aura as the previous two World Cups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kiwi

Morozov

The Devil Killer
Sep 18, 2007
13,846
364
SA was getting such little respect before this game. I took them +5.5 so I was happy.

People were talking about how much better across the park England was on paper. But stylistically, SA was a more difficult match up for England than NZ were with their approach. England crushed NZ up front, but that was never going to happen against SA. Their forwards are too big, too strong, they were never going to get rolled over like the NZ forwards did.

You had Eddie Jones talking about how he'd been building up to the All Blacks game for two and a half years, cool so they weren't actually building up to the final. And following up from that, we all saw how much England put into that NZ game, backing up from that performance was always going to be very difficult. The NZ game was their final, the spent years building towards it, the delivered, but unfortunately for them there was still more to go.

Faf and Pollard are the best 9-10 combo in the world as far as I'm concerned.

And then you look at some of the strike weapons like Kolbe and Mapimpi. They're more dangerous than the English backs.

SA has also come to NZ each of the past two years and not lost.

I'm not sure if it's because everyone was so OMG England beat New Zealand, or because England has much more media coverage, or people were stuck thinking South Africa are the same team from a few years back that really looked down and out, rather than the Erasmus era SA. But they really got written off far too much in the build up to the game.
 

I am not exposed

Registered User
Mar 16, 2014
21,911
10,034
Vancouver
SA was getting such little respect before this game. I took them +5.5 so I was happy.

People were talking about how much better across the park England was on paper. But stylistically, SA was a more difficult match up for England than NZ were with their approach. England crushed NZ up front, but that was never going to happen against SA. Their forwards are too big, too strong, they were never going to get rolled over like the NZ forwards did.

You had Eddie Jones talking about how he'd been building up to the All Blacks game for two and a half years, cool so they weren't actually building up to the final. And following up from that, we all saw how much England put into that NZ game, backing up from that performance was always going to be very difficult. The NZ game was their final, the spent years building towards it, the delivered, but unfortunately for them there was still more to go.

Faf and Pollard are the best 9-10 combo in the world as far as I'm concerned.

And then you look at some of the strike weapons like Kolbe and Mapimpi. They're more dangerous than the English backs.

SA has also come to NZ each of the past two years and not lost.

I'm not sure if it's because everyone was so OMG England beat New Zealand, or because England has much more media coverage, or people were stuck thinking South Africa are the same team from a few years back that really looked down and out, rather than the Erasmus era SA. But they really got written off far too much in the build up to the game.

Eddie Jones was talking about being the best team in the world, and he said that meant winning the world cup. So he was focusing on the final. After the euphoria against New Zealand, I thought Jones was saying the right things tbh.

Some of the English media was cringe worthy. Matt Dawson just prior to the world cup final did an article that a combined 15 of South Africa and England would have no South African players! I had to roll my eyes at that. I mean, who takes Youngs over Faf de Klerk lol.

Rugby World Cup final: The six key battles to decide the World Cup - Matt Dawson column
 

Fighter

Registered User
Jan 1, 2004
11,689
904
Trieste, Italy
WORLD CHAMPS CHAMPS CHAMPS!!!

Springboks showed the world that with proper coaching they are the top dogs, this victory is all about Rassie bringing a team which hit the rock bottom (for their standard) up to where they belong with a simple yet effective tactic: impenetrable, aggressive defense, box kicks, pressure on the opposing side and taking advantage thanks to their world's best scrum.

I don't know if without Sinckler things would have changed a lot for England, but Dan Cole will have nightmares of Mtawarira forever, he got literally crucified over and over by "The Beast".
I thought that during this WC the Bokke hid themselves a bit, not playing with full effort except against NZ, especially in those first 20 minutes, but the ABs try changed everything back then.
When both Mbonambi and De Jager went down in the same phase, SA got arguably better, which says a lot about the depth of their bench: Marx has to be the best hooker in the world, while Mostert is basically on par with De Jager (but a little less effective on the tackling). To think that the "second unit" of SA' scrum is even better than the first, put things in perspective.
I would say that the difference at 9-10 was quite noticeable, with Youngs constantly harrassed by Faf, forcing him to do glaring mistakes. To tell the truth, Faf has looked fantastic when defending and tackling but less so when attacking (his box kicks were sometimes KAK lol)

The general opinion is that South Africa dominated and England had never really a chance, but I disagree. See the NZ game...
A little before the 30th minute England was VERY close to score a try while the score was still only 6-3 SA, a try in that moment would have changed everything IMO.
It started after the touche, with Underhill cutting inside the Bokke line then with Tuilagi breaking off a tackle by Mostert. With the English side advancing inch by inch, there were AT LEAST three key tackles which saved the Bokke, without those we might talk about a whole different outcome: at the three metres first Underhill and then (after a couple of phases), Billy Vunipola rushed in and both times Vermeulen alone blocked them (with Vunipola, "Thor" managed to throw him back while hanging him from the side); after that Cole gets the ball behind the pile and goes around it on the blind side with the support of I think Mako Vunipola and Etzebeth all alone somehow manages to tackle him with the ball literally inches from the try line (I think I lost a couple of years of my life during these two phases!), then ANOTHER chance for England as Mako gets the ball but Kolisi and Malherbe perfect tackling sent him back. Unable to crush the rugged defense of the Springboks, England tried to go on the wing but Willie Le Roux, who had a bad tournament up until the final, tackled Watson first and Farrell right after, ending England's hopes for a try. All in all an outstanding display of defense and superb tackling, things in which the Bokke are the best in the world and they showed, but England was extremely close to take the lead and change the face of the game.
From there the score remained close for 25 more minutes but England never managed to feel dangerous due to the asfissiating Bokke's defense. Still, Farrell had a chance on a penalty kick to bring England within two points but he missed it and basically that was it for England.
After South Africa won the "war of attrition" with its trademark defense and its scrum, the rest was rugby academy with the beautiful Mapimpi's try (appreciate the quick hands of Marx passing the ball to Mapimpi before his perfect kick to Am) and Kolbe showing his speed and tackle-breaking skills on a dead-tired Farrell after a tackle by Marx provoked a turnover.

Vermeulen was basically perfect, he saved the Bokke on that England's attack, attacked well, received without mistakes... The Springboks will miss him when he'll call it quits. Du Toit was the most aggressive on defense and threw some scary tackles, he later won the Player of the Year award which says everything about his impact on the year of the Bokke. As for player of the tournament I would mention also De Allende: whenever mattered he was ALWAYS doing the right thing, rock solid on defense and very effective when attacking.

When Kolisi, the first black captain of the Springbok, lifted the Webb Ellis Cup, somewhere in the sky Nelson Mandela must have smiled.
 

Fighter

Registered User
Jan 1, 2004
11,689
904
Trieste, Italy
Still no quote of me saying all Polynesian All Blacks were born in NZ.

Probably because it never actually happened.

Nice try, I was banned from the thread.

So let's try again with the post that got me banned lol.

The ABs used the trick, like it or not. Not so often? Not "pretty much all"? The All Blacks did it, do it, and will continue to do it as long as they can get an advantage on getting world class players, nevermind the passport, the background or wherever they were born.
The system allows it: bring in the best prospect possible in the best rugby system in the world, if any pans out it's all AB advantage... no matter how much you try to cover it up, which is laughable really as even THIS current squad have some islanders even if you still don't recognize it lol.

This isn't a complaint, just exposing that what you're claiming isn't the truth, the kiwi system wasn't and isn't "pure" as you try to make it look.
As for the media, they indeed argue about this system and it's not only the northern emisphere because as you can imagine south africans have questioned this system themselves. While I do not care as it is within the rules, you can see the different stance on how the Mtawarira's case was treated back then in South Africa.
I'm not saying that the Springboks system is better or "purer" or crap like that, I just point out facts.

To me and the rest of the world too is blatantly obvious that the WC ABs without those not born in NZ would have been a worse team. Two of the starting 15 are world class players and were not born in NZ, plus another one who entered from the bench and another one which was in Japan. The kiwi is system IS the best in the world, but it stills scouts the islands in the case they can find something better or promising so yeah, if possible the All Blacks take advantage of their position, economy, prestige, you name it, to possibly get the best prospects available from Oceania. Do you really deny this?

As for the All Blacks developing all their talents, Savu Reece was already a star player in his Fiji (even if only 16).

2019 Rugby World Cup: Sevu Reece turns down Fiji to star for All Blacks


Born in Nadi, Reece arrived in New Zealand as a 16-year-old and attended Hamilton Boys' High School after winning a Pasifika scholarship. Once he arrived, there was only one international team on his mind.
"That's a tough question," Reece said when asked whether he might have considered representing Fiji in Japan rather than New Zealand.
"To be fair, it has always been a dream of mine to play with the All Blacks. I had conversations with the coach of the Flying Fijians [John McKee] and I showed him my plan and what I wanted to do with rugby and that was in the black jersey. I appreciated him trying to talk to me, but this was always a dream of mine, to play for the All Blacks."


These are only examples because out of four ABs, we don't know how many don't actually work out at AB level but still I think quite few "prospects" are brought over from the islands and get scholarships to go to NZ possibly every year... So my point stands.
 
Last edited:

Morozov

The Devil Killer
Sep 18, 2007
13,846
364
I've said, I'll engage with you again when you show the proof that I said all Polynesian All Blacks are born in New Zealand. You told me I said this, you still haven't provided proof. I'll continue to wait until you can back it up.

I've never said we are a "pure" team because I don't even think that's a thing, so stop trying to force something on me I've never said. I don't review teams for purity lol.

Again it's funny that you talk about NZ scouting the islands, but it's the schools that do that, not NZR and not funded by NZR. Of course, you don't actually know this, because you talk about something you have never been involved in and have no real knowledge of while proclaiming things as fact based on your second and third hand information lol.

You do know that thousands of people come to NZ from the islands right? Or do you think we have the biggest Polynesian city by schools recruiting Rugby players lol.

Show me where I said all Polynesian All Blacks are born in NZ. Stop dancing around it and do it. Why is it difficult?
 
Last edited:

Fighter

Registered User
Jan 1, 2004
11,689
904
Trieste, Italy
I've said, I'll engage with you again when you show the proof that I said all Polynesian All Blacks are born in New Zealand. You told me I said this, you still haven't provided proof. I'll continue to wait until you can back it up.

Okay :laugh:

Oh look another ignorant person who doesn't realise pretty much all of our Polynesian players are born in New Zealand.

Not all in 2019, not all in 2015, not all in 2011, not all in 2007, 2oo3 etc etc etc I can see the pattern of "pretty much all"... Be it migration, scouting, whatever, there are excemptions in all those squads. You focus on the numbers but I wonder if there have ever been an AB squad without an islander (pretty much all?); as far as I know, there wasn't in the WC. At the same time those islanders were all standout players (obviously) even if thanks to the NZ excellent rugby system.
Good for the All Blacks, it's not like saying they cheat or anything, but it's blatantly obvious they are favoure by this system, by their geographic position and by the fame as well (pretty much all the islanders dream of playing for the ABs and not for Fiji or Samoa...). Call it northern emisphere+SA media bias if you want.
I can only wish there will be more and more Mtawariras for the Bokke.

Again it's funny that you talk about NZ scouting the islands, but it's the schools that do that, not NZR and not funded by NZR. Of course, you don't actually know this, because you talk about something you have never been involved in and have no real knowledge of while proclaiming things as fact based on your second and third hand information lol.

And does this change the outcome? As we can all see the ABs are more than happy with the system, don't make it look like they do not have any interest in getting an advantage out of it.
 

Morozov

The Devil Killer
Sep 18, 2007
13,846
364
Does pretty much all mean all?

No?

OK, so again, show me where I said all Polynesian All Blacks are born in NZ like you claimed I did.

You keep quoting something that obviously isn't that thinking it works for some reason lol.

I don't know how else to explain this to you. Pretty much all does not mean all. How can we get you over this learning hurdle? What part of that do you not get so we can help you figure that out?

Their were many many many All Blacks teams with no Polynesian players because the All Blacks played long before Polynesian migration to New Zealand was a common occurrence. The fact that you need to wonder about this just further reinforces what is already clear, you mouth off about things you have no idea about.

Of course they'd be happy if they benefit from it. But you're blaming NZR are for this and framing it like NZR scours the islands offering passports to players. Which simply isn't true, because it's the schools that attract overseas talent and they aren't funded by NZR. Again, you didn't know this. The schools do it for their own benefit.

Though again, as we see in facts like the Tongan team having more players born in NZ than in Tonga, most are born here anyway. We're multiple generations into mass immigration from the islands to New Zealand at this point and more and more Australia as well.

Most of the Polynesian All Blacks who aren't born in NZ (all of 20 something of them in the All Blacks 116 year history) move here very young. But someone like yourself sees a player like Kaino and thinks import even though he moved at like 4. Sees Mils and thinks import but he moved when he was 3. Rokocoko moved at 5. Sees Umaga or Nonu and thinks import but they're born in New Zealand.

The 2015 final winning team, starters and bench, was all born in New Zealand.

The 2011 final winning team, starters and bench, was all born in New Zealand except Kaino who again moved when he was 4. Guess the scouts saw the talent early in him.

Of course, you didn't know that.
 
Last edited:

Siamese Dream

Registered User
Feb 5, 2011
75,216
1,238
United Britain of Great Kingdom
3231a48efaf24ef8b073a138baf8eab3f27906ec.gif
 

Morozov

The Devil Killer
Sep 18, 2007
13,846
364
Josh Ioane - born in NZ
Papalii - born in NZ
Ta'avao - NZ
Tu'inukuafe - NZ
Moli - NZ
Mo'unga - NZ
Rieko Ioane - NZ
Akira Ioane - Actually Japan, but Maori and raised in NZ, and of course Rieko's brother.
Aumua - NZ
Havili - NZ
Laumape - NZ
Lienert-Brown - NZ
Tu'ungafasi - Moved to NZ when he was 8
Ardie Savea - NZ
Sopoaga - NZ
Moala - NZ
Pulu - NZ
Tuipulotu - NZ
Saili - NZ
Piutau - NZ
Luatua - NZ
Afeaki - NZ
Faumuina - NZ
Julian Savea - NZ
Vito - NZ
Masaga - NZ
Wulf - NZ
Tuitavake - NZ
Filipo - NZ
Afoa - NZ
Tialata - NZ
Kaino - moved at 4
Tuiali'i - NZ
Tuitupou - NZ
Mils - moved at 3
Rokocoko - moved at 5
Nonu - NZ
So'oialo - moved at 6
Jones - NZ
Bunce - NZ
Williams - NZ
Umaga - NZ
Toeava - Moved at 7
Lam - NZ
Atiga - NZ
Mealamu - NZ
Mika - NZ
Tiatia - NZ

Getting pretty bored now so I'm giving up showing what I already knew was the case anyway.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad