RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks
-
In a one off match I do feel that there can be an undeserving winner, not often, but it does happen. I don't feel it is the case with the final to be honest. However what I was trying to say was that taken as a whole and looking at what any team has done to win a World Cup, there are no undeserving winners. No-one gets to breeze through the whole way, having an easy draw all the way through, getting the rub of the green all the way through, including the final.
-
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
In a one off match I do feel that there can be an undeserving winner, not often, but it does happen. I don't feel it is the case with the final to be honest. However what I was trying to say was that taken as a whole and looking at what any team has done to win a World Cup, there are no undeserving winners. No-one gets to breeze through the whole way, having an easy draw all the way through, getting the rub of the green all the way through, including the final.
The problem is that the only team which didn't fairly lose was France. There's no denying that Boks won, but it's an aberration that they made the final. So not deserving.
-
You're reaching a bit here mate. You can certainly say France were unlucky lose but equally you can say that if they can't deal with high kicks (not a surprise Saffer tactic) then well, were they really unlucky. Either way SA did enough to win that match. Four tries wasn't it?
-
re ABs as stated above. Don't have to win every game but aim for consistency of performance and selection.
The players haven't been the major issue. The top echelons of NZ Rugby have been. Fan frustrations understandable. Poorly run business. Bit too much mateship it appears.
Having said that a fantastic World Cup in the majority. The quarter final weekend best ever. -
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
You're reaching a bit here mate. You can certainly say France were unlucky lose but equally you can say that if they can't deal with high kicks (not a surprise Saffer tactic) then well, were they really unlucky. Either way SA did enough to win that match. Four tries wasn't it?
It's actually clear cut. The replays show that for winning penalty Kwagga put his right hand on ground for support before trying to effect the turnover. So France should have been kicking for poles instead of Boks. Boks 'won' by one point.
That's with ten to go, so pretty strong likelihood that French would have won by two or more.
-
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
You're reaching a bit here mate. You can certainly say France were unlucky lose but equally you can say that if they can't deal with high kicks (not a surprise Saffer tactic) then well, were they really unlucky. Either way SA did enough to win that match. Four tries wasn't it?
It's actually clear cut. The replays show that for winning penalty Kwagga put his right hand on ground for support before trying to effect the turnover. So France should have been kicking for poles instead of Boks. Boks 'won' by one point.
That's with ten to go, so pretty strong likelihood that French would have won by two or more.
Tell that Pollard. And England!
-
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
You're reaching a bit here mate. You can certainly say France were unlucky lose but equally you can say that if they can't deal with high kicks (not a surprise Saffer tactic) then well, were they really unlucky. Either way SA did enough to win that match. Four tries wasn't it?
It's actually clear cut. The replays show that for winning penalty Kwagga put his right hand on ground for support before trying to effect the turnover. So France should have been kicking for poles instead of Boks. Boks 'won' by one point.
That's with ten to go, so pretty strong likelihood that French would have won by two or more.
a few posts above which reflect but for a decision the other way the ABs / England / France would have beaten the Boks. It misses a vital point, that South Africa did what they had to do to win. Had the penalty against Smith gone the other way in both of the last two games, who's to say SA wouldn't have gone up the other end to score? They were infront in the final, and they played basically no risk rugby, had they needed to score, who knows what they would have done. Against England they were 9 points down with 10 mins or so to go, they did what they needed to do to get infront.
Its easy to dismiss 3, 1 point wins as lucky but its funny how often those 1 point wins fall the way of the team who are better / better at winning.
Similarly, people suggest that NZ would have won had they not had discipline issues (something we England fans have said about England over the last few years) - it ignores the fact that discipline issues come from pressure and playing at a level you're not comfortable sustaining. The Boks defensive and forward intensity and ability to play at that level consistently is almost unrivalled - Ireland have done it for the last 2 years but choked slightly in the quarter final. Most of the Bok penalties conceded in the final were intentional / a calculated risk.
-
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
You're reaching a bit here mate. You can certainly say France were unlucky lose but equally you can say that if they can't deal with high kicks (not a surprise Saffer tactic) then well, were they really unlucky. Either way SA did enough to win that match. Four tries wasn't it?
It's actually clear cut. The replays show that for winning penalty Kwagga put his right hand on ground for support before trying to effect the turnover. So France should have been kicking for poles instead of Boks. Boks 'won' by one point.
That's with ten to go, so pretty strong likelihood that French would have won by two or more.
a few posts above which reflect but for a decision the other way the ABs / England / France would have beaten the Boks. It misses a vital point, that South Africa did what they had to do to win. Had the penalty against Smith gone the other way in both of the last two games, who's to say SA wouldn't have gone up the other end to score? They were infront in the final, and they played basically no risk rugby, had they needed to score, who knows what they would have done. Against England they were 9 points down with 10 mins or so to go, they did what they needed to do to get infront.
Its easy to dismiss 3, 1 point wins as lucky but its funny how often those 1 point wins fall the way of the team who are better / better at winning.
Similarly, people suggest that NZ would have won had they not had discipline issues (something we England fans have said about England over the last few years) - it ignores the fact that discipline issues come from pressure and playing at a level you're not comfortable sustaining. The Boks defensive and forward intensity and ability to play at that level consistently is almost unrivalled - Ireland have done it for the last 2 years but choked slightly in the quarter final. Most of the Bok penalties conceded in the final were intentional / a calculated risk.
Yeah. They did enough to win after getting into the lead. It was always about containing the other side, England were underestimated though.
-
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
Most of the Bok penalties conceded in the final were intentional / a calculated risk.
This is the secret sauce, and where SA were so far ahead of others in the tournament
-
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
You're reaching a bit here mate. You can certainly say France were unlucky lose but equally you can say that if they can't deal with high kicks (not a surprise Saffer tactic) then well, were they really unlucky. Either way SA did enough to win that match. Four tries wasn't it?
It's actually clear cut. The replays show that for winning penalty Kwagga put his right hand on ground for support before trying to effect the turnover. So France should have been kicking for poles instead of Boks. Boks 'won' by one point.
That's with ten to go, so pretty strong likelihood that French would have won by two or more.
a few posts above which reflect but for a decision the other way the ABs / England / France would have beaten the Boks. It misses a vital point, that South Africa did what they had to do to win. Had the penalty against Smith gone the other way in both of the last two games, who's to say SA wouldn't have gone up the other end to score? They were infront in the final, and they played basically no risk rugby, had they needed to score, who knows what they would have done. Against England they were 9 points down with 10 mins or so to go, they did what they needed to do to get infront.
Its easy to dismiss 3, 1 point wins as lucky but its funny how often those 1 point wins fall the way of the team who are better / better at winning.
Similarly, people suggest that NZ would have won had they not had discipline issues (something we England fans have said about England over the last few years) - it ignores the fact that discipline issues come from pressure and playing at a level you're not comfortable sustaining. The Boks defensive and forward intensity and ability to play at that level consistently is almost unrivalled - Ireland have done it for the last 2 years but choked slightly in the quarter final. Most of the Bok penalties conceded in the final were intentional / a calculated risk.
In fact NZ gave away far fewer penalties than SA. And in terms of player safety Kolisi's tackle, which was was always going to involve head contact with Savea, was no better than Cane's. Without his reappearance Boks were finished.
We can argue till the cows come home, but it's pretty clear that arbitrary TMO decisions decided the final, and faulty reffing decisions ended the run of France. I thought England were desparately unlucky with a couple of scrum calls, but it was apparent that Boks finishers were too hot for theirs to handle.
Perhaps the common ground is that, if we're having the premier event in the rugby calendar we need to find a way to ensure that dodgy decisions don't alter the final result.
IMO the TMO was a blight on the tournament and the fans would have been better without it.
-
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
You're reaching a bit here mate. You can certainly say France were unlucky lose but equally you can say that if they can't deal with high kicks (not a surprise Saffer tactic) then well, were they really unlucky. Either way SA did enough to win that match. Four tries wasn't it?
It's actually clear cut. The replays show that for winning penalty Kwagga put his right hand on ground for support before trying to effect the turnover. So France should have been kicking for poles instead of Boks. Boks 'won' by one point.
That's with ten to go, so pretty strong likelihood that French would have won by two or more.
Tell that Pollard. And England!
The French had the best of last ten but England were just hanging on and hoping, a bit like the Boks on Saturday.
-
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
You're reaching a bit here mate. You can certainly say France were unlucky lose but equally you can say that if they can't deal with high kicks (not a surprise Saffer tactic) then well, were they really unlucky. Either way SA did enough to win that match. Four tries wasn't it?
It's actually clear cut. The replays show that for winning penalty Kwagga put his right hand on ground for support before trying to effect the turnover. So France should have been kicking for poles instead of Boks. Boks 'won' by one point.
That's with ten to go, so pretty strong likelihood that French would have won by two or more.
a few posts above which reflect but for a decision the other way the ABs / England / France would have beaten the Boks. It misses a vital point, that South Africa did what they had to do to win. Had the penalty against Smith gone the other way in both of the last two games, who's to say SA wouldn't have gone up the other end to score? They were infront in the final, and they played basically no risk rugby, had they needed to score, who knows what they would have done. Against England they were 9 points down with 10 mins or so to go, they did what they needed to do to get infront.
Its easy to dismiss 3, 1 point wins as lucky but its funny how often those 1 point wins fall the way of the team who are better / better at winning.
Similarly, people suggest that NZ would have won had they not had discipline issues (something we England fans have said about England over the last few years) - it ignores the fact that discipline issues come from pressure and playing at a level you're not comfortable sustaining. The Boks defensive and forward intensity and ability to play at that level consistently is almost unrivalled - Ireland have done it for the last 2 years but choked slightly in the quarter final. Most of the Bok penalties conceded in the final were intentional / a calculated risk.
In fact NZ gave away far fewer penalties than SA. And in terms of player safety Kolisi's tackle, which was was always going to involve head contact with Savea, was no better than Cane's. Without his reappearance Boks were finished.
We can argue till the cows come home, but it's pretty clear that arbitrary TMO decisions decided the final, and faulty reffing decisions ended the run of France. I thought England were desparately unlucky with a couple of scrum calls, but it was apparent that Boks finishers were too hot for theirs to handle.
Perhaps the common ground is that, if we're having the premier event in the rugby calendar we need to find a way to ensure that dodgy decisions don't alter the final result.
IMO the TMO was a blight on the tournament and the fans would have been better without it.
-
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
You're reaching a bit here mate. You can certainly say France were unlucky lose but equally you can say that if they can't deal with high kicks (not a surprise Saffer tactic) then well, were they really unlucky. Either way SA did enough to win that match. Four tries wasn't it?
It's actually clear cut. The replays show that for winning penalty Kwagga put his right hand on ground for support before trying to effect the turnover. So France should have been kicking for poles instead of Boks. Boks 'won' by one point.
That's with ten to go, so pretty strong likelihood that French would have won by two or more.
Tell that Pollard. And England!
The French had the best of last ten but England were just hanging on and hoping, a bit like the Boks on Saturday.
This is true
-
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
You're reaching a bit here mate. You can certainly say France were unlucky lose but equally you can say that if they can't deal with high kicks (not a surprise Saffer tactic) then well, were they really unlucky. Either way SA did enough to win that match. Four tries wasn't it?
It's actually clear cut. The replays show that for winning penalty Kwagga put his right hand on ground for support before trying to effect the turnover. So France should have been kicking for poles instead of Boks. Boks 'won' by one point.
That's with ten to go, so pretty strong likelihood that French would have won by two or more.
a few posts above which reflect but for a decision the other way the ABs / England / France would have beaten the Boks. It misses a vital point, that South Africa did what they had to do to win. Had the penalty against Smith gone the other way in both of the last two games, who's to say SA wouldn't have gone up the other end to score? They were infront in the final, and they played basically no risk rugby, had they needed to score, who knows what they would have done. Against England they were 9 points down with 10 mins or so to go, they did what they needed to do to get infront.
Its easy to dismiss 3, 1 point wins as lucky but its funny how often those 1 point wins fall the way of the team who are better / better at winning.
Similarly, people suggest that NZ would have won had they not had discipline issues (something we England fans have said about England over the last few years) - it ignores the fact that discipline issues come from pressure and playing at a level you're not comfortable sustaining. The Boks defensive and forward intensity and ability to play at that level consistently is almost unrivalled - Ireland have done it for the last 2 years but choked slightly in the quarter final. Most of the Bok penalties conceded in the final were intentional / a calculated risk.
They way you and so many are praising SA, you would think that them winning the final by 1 point against a 14 man team was one of the greatest ever achievements by a rugby team. Have even seen pundits compare this team to the 2015 ABs.
If it was the other way around and the ABs didn't score a point against 14 for the last 55 minutes, everyone would be saying that we are huge chokers who got lucky.
-
@OomPB said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@akan004 the Springboks had two yellows. Kolbey in the last 10 minutes. I
True, but that's still only 17 minutes with 14 versus 65 (Cane and Frizell). SA also had a 6 point lead when Cane went off.
-
@akan004 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
You're reaching a bit here mate. You can certainly say France were unlucky lose but equally you can say that if they can't deal with high kicks (not a surprise Saffer tactic) then well, were they really unlucky. Either way SA did enough to win that match. Four tries wasn't it?
It's actually clear cut. The replays show that for winning penalty Kwagga put his right hand on ground for support before trying to effect the turnover. So France should have been kicking for poles instead of Boks. Boks 'won' by one point.
That's with ten to go, so pretty strong likelihood that French would have won by two or more.
a few posts above which reflect but for a decision the other way the ABs / England / France would have beaten the Boks. It misses a vital point, that South Africa did what they had to do to win. Had the penalty against Smith gone the other way in both of the last two games, who's to say SA wouldn't have gone up the other end to score? They were infront in the final, and they played basically no risk rugby, had they needed to score, who knows what they would have done. Against England they were 9 points down with 10 mins or so to go, they did what they needed to do to get infront.
Its easy to dismiss 3, 1 point wins as lucky but its funny how often those 1 point wins fall the way of the team who are better / better at winning.
Similarly, people suggest that NZ would have won had they not had discipline issues (something we England fans have said about England over the last few years) - it ignores the fact that discipline issues come from pressure and playing at a level you're not comfortable sustaining. The Boks defensive and forward intensity and ability to play at that level consistently is almost unrivalled - Ireland have done it for the last 2 years but choked slightly in the quarter final. Most of the Bok penalties conceded in the final were intentional / a calculated risk.
They way you and so many are praising SA, you would think that them winning the final by 1 point against a 14 man team was one of the greatest ever achievements by a rugby team. Have even seen pundits compare this team to the 2015 ABs.
If it was the other way around and the ABs didn't score a point against 14 for the last 55 minutes, everyone would be saying that we are huge chokers who got lucky.
And the way you are talking you’d think that playing the other 5 of the top 6 teams in the world to win a World Cup, a back to back World Cup, is not worthy of praise and only the result of fuck ups by the ref / other team etc.
I don’t think they’re the greatest team ever, not by a long shot, but I’ll be fucked that I’ll pretend what they’ve done isn’t great.
-
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Dodge said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@pakman said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
You're reaching a bit here mate. You can certainly say France were unlucky lose but equally you can say that if they can't deal with high kicks (not a surprise Saffer tactic) then well, were they really unlucky. Either way SA did enough to win that match. Four tries wasn't it?
It's actually clear cut. The replays show that for winning penalty Kwagga put his right hand on ground for support before trying to effect the turnover. So France should have been kicking for poles instead of Boks. Boks 'won' by one point.
That's with ten to go, so pretty strong likelihood that French would have won by two or more.
a few posts above which reflect but for a decision the other way the ABs / England / France would have beaten the Boks. It misses a vital point, that South Africa did what they had to do to win. Had the penalty against Smith gone the other way in both of the last two games, who's to say SA wouldn't have gone up the other end to score? They were infront in the final, and they played basically no risk rugby, had they needed to score, who knows what they would have done. Against England they were 9 points down with 10 mins or so to go, they did what they needed to do to get infront.
Its easy to dismiss 3, 1 point wins as lucky but its funny how often those 1 point wins fall the way of the team who are better / better at winning.
Similarly, people suggest that NZ would have won had they not had discipline issues (something we England fans have said about England over the last few years) - it ignores the fact that discipline issues come from pressure and playing at a level you're not comfortable sustaining. The Boks defensive and forward intensity and ability to play at that level consistently is almost unrivalled - Ireland have done it for the last 2 years but choked slightly in the quarter final. Most of the Bok penalties conceded in the final were intentional / a calculated risk.
In fact NZ gave away far fewer penalties than SA. And in terms of player safety Kolisi's tackle, which was was always going to involve head contact with Savea, was no better than Cane's. Without his reappearance Boks were finished.
We can argue till the cows come home, but it's pretty clear that arbitrary TMO decisions decided the final, and faulty reffing decisions ended the run of France. I thought England were desparately unlucky with a couple of scrum calls, but it was apparent that Boks finishers were too hot for theirs to handle.
Perhaps the common ground is that, if we're having the premier event in the rugby calendar we need to find a way to ensure that dodgy decisions don't alter the final result.
IMO the TMO was a blight on the tournament and the fans would have been better without it.
Should the TMO be involved as much? Not sure to be honest. I prefer accurate decisions to obvious mistakes being waived on because the ref missed them, I accept that a balance is tough to strike though.
It’s not pretty clear to me that refereeing decisions DECIDED the final, affected it sure, but decided it? Not for me, we can disagree on that if you like but it strikes me a strange position to take given you missed a penalty in the last few minutes.
-
