World Rankings: There’s a new No.1 after Boks' shock loss

Agree to disagree, have a good one.

SA have been moving towards this style for over a year.

SA had very close to a full strength team.

Your reply is the correct answer to a different question. One I didn’t ask. You’ve gone out of your way to avoid the point I made and discuss the point you want to make.

I never said that it was Springboks B team or anything like that. I said: “One bad loss, while trying new tactics, with some key players missing could just be an aberration”.

Embedding such massive system change. It take 12 games (only counting international trier one sides) to make such a big change like that work.

They were missing some key players. I doubt they would’ve replaced Kolisi until the Wallabies out of the game, not just after half time. One try and the Springboks would be right back in it only being 11 points down, having a halfback on the wing doesn’t help. Kolbe can score a try from anywhere and is a solid leader like Kolisi. Willemse is not the kind of 10 that can settle a team down when things go wrong.

I don’t think that key players being/getting injured was mostly favorable. I think a lot

I’m sorry for fixating on responding to the point you made! Given I understood your point, maybe you could have tried harder to understand my reply.

I am now going to respond to the further points you have made in this most recent comment. I am sorry in advance if that upsets you.

“Going from a 10 man rugby system to a 15 man rugby system is one of the most difficult changes to make in rugby.”

Agree, but the Boks have been moving towards this style for over a year.

“The Springboks lost their captain just after half time”

They always lose Kolisi not long after half time. He’s started 10 tests since the world cup and only lasted 80 minutes once.

“Arendse was replaced by a halfback, yes later in the game.”

When he was replaced Australia were already 11 points ahead.

“Kolbe was injured.”

Yeah, not ideal, but some players will always be injured. No team is ever able to field an entirely full strength team, but SA came very close on saturday.

“They didn’t have a replacement at 10.”

Willemse has started 8 test matches at 10. He’s started 36 senior professional games at 10. That’s 30% of all the games he has ever played.

“There was a lot that could’ve gone better for the Springboks”

No. Some stuff could have gone better, but the circumstances that were out of their control were mostly favourable. They had very close to a full strength team.

Going from 10 man rugby to 15 man rugby is still more difficult.

It’s a complete shift of everything the Springboks know. It went very poorly in 2016 and 2017 for them too.

The All Blacks still used to win (most of the time) when they lost Carter or McCaw. Like in 2013 when Carter was injured for a large amount of the international season. The All Blacks has high quality back up for Carter and McCaw also.

I understand the point because I made the point to start with. If you understood the point that you did a good job of seeming like you didn’t. You seemed fixated that the Springboks didn’t have players, quite as, good as Carter or McCaw.

Going from a 10 man rugby system to a 15 man rugby system is one of the most difficult changes to make in rugby. The Springboks lost their captain just after half time, also he’s an explosive loose forward which makes him extra important when trying to implement a 15 man game. Arendse was replaced by a halfback, yes later in the game. Kolbe was injured. They didn’t have a replacement at 10. There was a lot that could’ve gone better for the Springboks and they could’ve prepared a lot better; they probably thought the Wallabies would be a walk over and the Springboks could rely on scrum penalties etc. It was the first real test of their new system. A full strength team would’ve made a difference.

Let's be honest, the Allblacks are only number one because the French sent a B team and having beaten Argentina with their forward pack.

Apparently the Allblacks don't have a plan for a backline, it's ten man rugby with a bit of Jordan thrown in.

I’m a bit tired of the continuous commentary along the lines that the Wallabies didn’t really win the Test at Ellis Park the Sprinboks let them take it. One commentator even mentioned that actually the Springboks were the better team. Do me a favour!!

Reality is that on the day the Boks were flogged by a team that were better prepared, were in better condition, had a better game plan and most importantly had a better attitude. They succumbed to the pressure from the Wallabies not any of the dozens of other lame excuses being proffered. As one of my Kiwi mates texted me he “could here the air hissing out of the Boks and their supporters all the way to NZ”

The BIG BIG story in the rankings is Australia are now well clear in sixth and will likely be in the first pool seeds for their home world cup. This is a remarkable feat by Joe Schmidt.

It is a wee bit false with France sending their Reject XV to get smoked in 3 tests straight but hey.

It’s more like a spot prize win than a raffle win.

I’ve understood since the start.

It might be slightly easier for SA if they had better players available, but they didn’t have very many much better players. This was quite close to a 1st choice SA team, and very close to the best team SA would ever realistically be able to put out (there will always be some players injured).

Do you finally understand now?

Yes more challenging, but not as challenging as losing two of the best rugby players of all time is.

My humble opinion on Mallett's comments…yes Manie is to blame for one intercepted long pass….but he was selected to make those passes….yes Pollard might be a better defensive 10 but he was not selected! Did Libbok pick himself?

Now the real reason why we lost…..our lineouts were poor…our loose trio were pathetic when we needed them..PSD excluded…where was Eben? As a pack we were outplayed. We were overshadowed in the loose.

Rassie is 100% correct…tge coaches are to blame!! Not one single player Mr Mallett.

The best first choice team in the world is France.

The general NZ population won’t feel like their really No.1 till they beat the Springboks. Bring them on!

This is why the Rugby Championship is a better tournament than the 6 nations, there are no easy games, any side can knock over the other on the day. The 6 nations you have 3 competitive teams, then the rest just making up the numbers.

SA pulled two wins out of the fire against NZ last year and only drew the series with Ireland. So against 4 top 4 teams at home the record was 3/4 with all matches at one score. Its a good record but not the ‘Greatest Team Of All Time’ record that was hyped.

That was a humbling win by Australia. Much of the talk by Saffers (and Kiwis in fairness) was about storming Eden Park. A necessary dose of respect and humility administered by this admirable Australia team.