Arg v SA - 2nd Test 24th Aug

[flat_eric]

SA 22- Arg 17
Wow what difference a week makes. Even though they still lost, coming off a 60 point thrashing and an unchanged Bok lineup, the Argies are a formidable beast at home.

 

[Rassie]

You have to consider Meyers teams are beasts at altitude pretty much shocking away from home.

And Australia are now at the bottom of the log facing relegation......

 

[Blue]

Like I said after the June tests this game plan is 100% based on forward dominance.

If we don't achive forward dominance there just is no other plan.

I expect AB's and Wobs will match us in the pack and beat us. We might scrape by at home. Maybe.

I have predicted a dismal RC this year and hold by it. Meyer's lack of adventure will become more obvious as the season wears on.

 

[Baldric]

Meyer's lack of adventure will become more obvious as the season wears on.

We play the most predictable rugby. It is so easy to play against us. We have moments where we almost break out and play decent rugby, then they remember where they are go back to the one dimensional game plan. We will shown up in the games against Aus and NZ and it will not be pretty.

 

[aeneas]

I think theres a little too much negativity here Bokkies! I'm expecting you guys to win all your home matches at least. The Bok scrum will demolish the aussies at they very least and have parity with the AB's.

I reckon you have the best number 6 at the moment and I can't imagine whatever 10 the AB's dredge up is going to be up to the task of defending their channel against your back row.

 

[aeneas]

The bok game plan might be incredibly conservative. But is its brutally effective when executed to perfection.

 

[Baldric]

The bok game plan might be incredibly conservative. But is its brutally effective when executed to perfection

It works well when we are dominant and things are going our way. The moment we hit some gradient it turns to poo and the lack of plan B shows it's head. We also kick all our possession away, which against the ABs and Wobs will be the end of us.

 

[biltong]

You have to consider Meyers teams are beasts at altitude pretty much shocking away from home.

And Australia are now at the bottom of the log facing relegation..

Wonder if the Southern Kings will get their spot.

 

[biltong]

you have to ask why do we travel so poorly, and you have to ask why our forwards are so inconsistent at the breakdown.

 

[Blue]

One of the reasons this weekend was pace. Vermeulen and Alberts can't be in the same back row. They are too slow. The Argies got the the contact zone ahead of them every time.

What happened last year? The Wobs and ABs sped the game up and we struggled.

Caveman ball loses against pace if you can't monster the collision.

As for the travel I really don't know. That has a lot to do with self belief. We hit Brisbane or Auckland and I don't think our guys believe they can win.

 

[Blue]

On another note six of the Boks have had to fly to France to play for their clubs this weekend.

Then they fly back to SA and get on a plane to Aus right away with almost no prep.

This is all going to end in tears. It cannot work.

 

[Rassie]

Yeah its mission impossible
SA by 15

 

[Rassie]

Yeah its mission impossible
SA by 15

 

[Zander]

Why did Steve Walsh not award a penalty when Etzebeth knocked on into Strauss?

 

[biltong]

No he didn't his explanation was he himself thought it came off an Argentinian so Strauss must have thought the same.

 

[Zander]

No he didn't his explanation was he himself thought it came off an Argentinian so Strauss must have thought the same.

Last time I checked that's not an excuse for being offside. The only excuse for being offside and touching the ball is if it accidentally touches you and then it's an accidental offside (scrum), he deliberately played at the ball.

 

[biltong]

Yes he did deliberately play th ball as he thought it came off an Argentine hand, same as Walsh.

 

[Zander]

It's still a penalty. Walsh got it wrong originally but the TMO corrected it but a penalty did not result - why?

 

[Brisbok]

It's still a penalty. Walsh got it wrong originally but the TMO corrected it but a penalty did not result - why?

Is it that hard to believe that Walsh gave Strauss the benefit of doubt? Given that he in fact missed it himself and the TMO then had to look at a couple of slow motion replays from different angles to determine that it was in fact only Etzebeth that touched it, he most likely thought it would have been harsh to penalise Strauss.

 

[Zander]

Is it that hard to believe that Walsh gave Strauss the benefit of doubt? Given that he in fact missed it himself and the TMO then had to look at a couple of slow motion replays from different angles to determine that it was in fact only Etzebeth that touched it, he most likely thought it would have been harsh to penalise Strauss.

Benefit of the doubt, what is this crap? You can't give discretion on laws, it's a penalty. Someone intercepts a ball, runs 60m to the goal line untouched with no opposing player within 20m of him and as he's placing the ball knocks it on. Benefit of the doubt try?