• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

RWC 2015 Semi Final 1 - NZ vs RSA Twickenham

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dewald Nel

Dewald Nel

Cyril Towers (30)
PaarlBok said:
Interesting you qoute this three Bokke. Its make or break for them playing against the best in world rugby. They are the future of Springbok rugby.
Click to expand...


Serfontein was quite good against them last year, and also De Allende and Kriel this year. I don't foresee any particular problems with them.

I guess they know that if they slip any tackles, it's up to Le Roux to stop Smith/Savea, which won't happen, so they'll be tackling like demons.
 
Hell West & Crooked

Hell West & Crooked

Alex Ross (28)
zer0 said:
I read in one of the deluge of filler articles this week that, apparently, we've only ever lost once to the Boks in the rain (though I'm not quite sure how they defined "rain"). Regardless, the pack normally plays quite well in the rain as they're forced to tighten up. So I'd be fairly confident of still winning, regardless of whether its rain or shine (/gloomy).
Click to expand...


for me, the only real chance the Boks have of an upset is for the day to be wet, the field to be heavy, and the ability of the ABs to spread the ball out wide is fundamentally inhibited... this may keep the scores closer and put more emphasis on the kickers - but I am not at all convinced it will change the result.
 
Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Hell West & Crooked said:
for me, the only real chance the Boks have of an upset is for the day to be wet, the field to be heavy, and the ability of the ABs to spread the ball out wide is fundamentally inhibited. this may keep the scores closer and put more emphasis on the kickers - but I am not at all convinced it will change the result.
Click to expand...

Outlook for Saturday to Monday

Breezy at times. Some heavy rain for a time later on Saturday, then clearer and colder later. Generally fine and dry Sunday. Cloudier and milder Monday but probably staying dry.

http://www.bbc.com/weather/2643743
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

George Smith (75)
Dewald Nel said:
View attachment 7131
Click to expand...

Where did you find that? Is it copyrighted? Can I "borrow" it for my blog match review?

BTW I reckon it's more a Sherman v Tiger scenario :)

image.jpeg


PS they're not mine, I'm not @Dismal Pillock (who is oddly absent from this or for that matter any recent thread)
 
zer0

zer0

John Thornett (49)
Wait, wait, wait. Why is NZ the Sherman? The Sherman's biggest virtues were A) that it was a reliable plodder; and B) that there was a metric f*ck tonne of them.

IMO NZ would be more like a Panther. At the cutting edge of development, its lighter and more mobile than a Tiger, but still packing a broadly similar punch. Get it out in the wide open spaces and your opponent had best bite the pillow as their anus is about to be seriously violated. On the other hand, get it into a close quarters dog fight and its effectiveness drops off.

A Tiger works well for SA. A big, heavy lumbering monstrosity that'll f*ck your day up every which way if you try to play it at what it does best: a static set-piece oriented game where it can blast you into submission. It's a beast, however, that's prone to being outmaneuvered by lighter more mobile foes.
 
ChargerWA

ChargerWA

Mark Loane (55)
I don't get the continual references to SA being big slow and cumbersome. Yes they play best when winning the collision and getting front foot ball, but that is literally the definition of winning rugby.

They have the strike power in the backline to win nicely and do it as regularly as the Wallabies do. They're also good enough to win ugly, when the ball doesn't bounce their way. SA have evolved the way they play rugby, but most rugby fans are stuck in the early 2000s in their analysis of them.
 
Relance

Relance

Herbert Moran (7)
Schematically, you could say the Boks aim to wear out their opponent by consistently winning the collisions, whereas other teams are just looking to destabilize the opposition in order to exploit the gaps behind or on the fringes.

There have been a few games over the last couple of years when they've tried to add width to their attack but to say that they do it as regularly as the Wallabies is a stretch. Since their loss to Japan they've reverted to the old tryptic. I don't think it's necessarily slow though: when they get their offloading game going in the tight channels and try to stay up they're very dangerous.
 
The_Brown_Hornet

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
When I think about why I love rugby so much, more than anything it's the culture and ethos around the game. My only hope is that the Wallabies uphold this (in spite of the example given in the article). It's important and contributes to making the game great and making the people involved in it better people.
 
Tomikin

Tomikin

David Codey (61)
Braveheart81 said:
It's hard to see the All Blacks playing that well three times in a row.

If they do they'll win the RWC. That was 10/10 sort of stuff that you rarely see them produce.

I don't think anyone can go with them if they play like that. I also can't see them playing like that in both the remaining games, if at all.
Click to expand...
Against a French team with no coach, they were sublime but the French were God awful

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top