What is always good to hear is someone who got to the top and won it all, they tend to speak with a freedom, no fear of hurting their own ego they just say it like it is. So many almost there sportspeople down other teams or other peoples talents and abilities for the sake of protecting their own fragile ego. Not Vickery, he was a deserving world champion and so he speaks without fear and calls it like it is.
Phil am a big fan of England team but I have a great respect for you for breaking down the main points about South Africa strength of a game.đŽó §ó ąó „ó źó §ó żđŽó §ó ąó „ó źó §ó ż
It is not the one or the other; the Boks forwards are physical, their goal is to overpower their opponents, and then hit with backs; the backs can be very direct in their play, but also attack with flair; sometimes from scrums or line-outs; and other times by creating havok from open play. What they are good at is defence, turnovers, counter-attacks and then striking with the backs. Then you have a few players that can take the ball up hard and fast. De Allende and Kriel are good examples of players that are running straight, hard and fast, but they are also very skillfull. GO the BOKS in '24.
I think the difference is that when the ABâs goes on the counter attack they score within one or two phases, whereas the Boks sometimes need a little bit more than that. McCawâs team was a lot like this Bok team, or vice versa I suppose. Even if they are down by two scores 10 minutes out, you still feel they are not out of the game yet. Once you have built that reputation (the Boks have now cemented that perception with three 1-point wins against massive competition at WC2023), if a game is not closed out by minute 70, opposition panic is going to give it to the Boks 9 times out of 10.
@@fourieorama ABs could also take the game away from teams in a way this Boks seemingly can't. Winning percentage and scoreline disparities highlight this. Boks aren't close to the 2001-2015 ABs, but I doubt now any team will. Bok are very very good last few years, and always look as if they can lift when they need to.
â@@fourieoramayou must be joking. Since 1976 when your uncle Gert stopped blowing the whistle for you, you lose more than 70% v the Abs. Try and keep up with the group please
â@@joedennehy386here we go again. Your home fixtures weren't exactly fair pre76 and yet you full of fingers. I still question 2011 Bryce Lawrence winning new Zealand ref of the year and calling the worst game in history at that point. The game stopped the only opposition to the AB's and enabled them to win the WC. Then of course the whining of your commentators and how rugby has changed the rules to limit the scrum. Making laws suit New Zealand for a while now...and you continue to whine about pre76. Boks didn't lose a test series for 50 years in and out SA before that. Will you credit them for it...of course not. Boks beast you in your own backyard ... Will you credit them that. Of course not. Yet we credit you as the toughest rivals. Grow up and respect your toughest opponent you AB or should I say BS
I agree ( I am a Bok supporter) but surely the All Blacks are that little better on every aspect mentioned? I mean, look at the absolute dominance by them over the past 30-40 years
What is always good to hear is someone who got to the top and won it all, they tend to speak with a freedom, no fear of hurting their own ego they just say it like it is. So many almost there sportspeople down other teams or other peoples talents and abilities for the sake of protecting their own fragile ego. Not Vickery, he was a deserving world champion and so he speaks without fear and calls it like it is.
Phil am a big fan of England team but I have a great respect for you for breaking down the main points about South Africa strength of a game.đŽó §ó ąó „ó źó §ó żđŽó §ó ąó „ó źó §ó ż
The man speaks truth. As a Bok supporter I love the blend of power, pace and skill (in that order).
Thank you Phil
They are big, strong, skilled and clever. More so than the rest.
Good on you Phil everyone always focuses on the physicality when most Bok tries are are from backline moments of brilliance
It is not the one or the other; the Boks forwards are physical, their goal is to overpower their opponents, and then hit with backs; the backs can be very direct in their play, but also attack with flair; sometimes from scrums or line-outs; and other times by creating havok from open play. What they are good at is defence, turnovers, counter-attacks and then striking with the backs. Then you have a few players that can take the ball up hard and fast. De Allende and Kriel are good examples of players that are running straight, hard and fast, but they are also very skillfull. GO the BOKS in '24.
Well said and spkoken
Spot on đâ€
Interesting point of view, this is how I have always viewed the new zealand rugby team as well.
I think the difference is that when the ABâs goes on the counter attack they score within one or two phases, whereas the Boks sometimes need a little bit more than that. McCawâs team was a lot like this Bok team, or vice versa I suppose. Even if they are down by two scores 10 minutes out, you still feel they are not out of the game yet. Once you have built that reputation (the Boks have now cemented that perception with three 1-point wins against massive competition at WC2023), if a game is not closed out by minute 70, opposition panic is going to give it to the Boks 9 times out of 10.
@@fourieorama ABs could also take the game away from teams in a way this Boks seemingly can't. Winning percentage and scoreline disparities highlight this. Boks aren't close to the 2001-2015 ABs, but I doubt now any team will.
Bok are very very good last few years, and always look as if they can lift when they need to.
â@@fourieoramayou must be joking. Since 1976 when your uncle Gert stopped blowing the whistle for you, you lose more than 70% v the Abs. Try and keep up with the group please
â@@joedennehy386here we go again. Your home fixtures weren't exactly fair pre76 and yet you full of fingers. I still question 2011 Bryce Lawrence winning new Zealand ref of the year and calling the worst game in history at that point. The game stopped the only opposition to the AB's and enabled them to win the WC. Then of course the whining of your commentators and how rugby has changed the rules to limit the scrum. Making laws suit New Zealand for a while now...and you continue to whine about pre76. Boks didn't lose a test series for 50 years in and out SA before that. Will you credit them for it...of course not. Boks beast you in your own backyard ... Will you credit them that. Of course not. Yet we credit you as the toughest rivals. Grow up and respect your toughest opponent you AB or should I say BS
Springboks= Rugby
Mieliepap.
They are a wonderful side, the second best in the world, a long way behind the All-black though. Miles
Well... There is this silly little tournament that they won last year. Probably nothing important.
Ask the irish
I agree ( I am a Bok supporter) but surely the All Blacks are that little better on every aspect mentioned? I mean, look at the absolute dominance by them over the past 30-40 years
Definitely not the physical side and do not forget that kne thing that they are better at is the forward pass đ
SA = 4 x world cups NZ = ? :)
@@phoenixrising427 That is not my point.
@@louisvanniekerk2612 AKA NZ Flat pass :0
@@RNRSA2023 Ek verstaan, NZ is oor die algemenn,meer gebalanseerd en die span om te wen
It's not, NZ does it every year.
Another butt hurt NZer⊠itâs a contest of who can blow the bigger snot-bubbles between you lot and the French!